text:
Hockey Trade Rumors
2014 – NHL UFA Center
Bolland for Luongo? Not a chance
July 17, 2012 Chicago Black Hawks, HTR Feature Article, Trade Rumors, Vancouver Canucks 31 Comments
Once again the idea of the Chicago Blackhawks trading for Vancouver Canucks goaltender Roberto Luongo has reared its ugly head. Over the weekend, a story in the Vancouver Province said the teams have been talking and "reportedly" the Hawks have dangled Dave Bolland for the embattled netminder.
There are so many reasons this would be a bad idea it's hard to pick the best one. In fact, trading anyone for Luongo remains a poor notion. Talk about creating a bigger headache than you already have …
Bolland is a valuable player. For what the Hawks need out of Luongo he simply may not be. At least not for what his contract dictates him to be. If he still was, the Canucks would not be trading him. And the Hawks are short on centers as it is. Potentially upgrading themselves in goal will only come back to haunt them up the middle. Most important is the idea that the Canucks believe they can get full value — which Bolland would be — for Luongo. The whole league knows he's being moved. If the Hawks trade a quasi top-6 forward for Luongo, Vancouver would be committing highway robbery.
And no matter his public proclamations, Luongo doesn't want any part of leaving one pressure cooker for another. Not a chance. His leash with fans in Chicago wouldn't last through the fan convention this weekend let alone his first soft goal. The Hawks know this. There has been no indication from them — publicly or privately — throughout the offseason that they are interested in Luongo other than perhaps the usual perfunctory phone calls that can be chalked up to due diligence.
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/blackhawks/post/_/id/4671322/bolland-for-luongo-not-a-chance?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
31 Responses to Bolland for Luongo? Not a chance
HABSdomination says:
Nice article and all oh-so true. Luongo is basically fucked for now. He'll probably end up in Florida, where he wants to go to become M. Nobody in the street and proceed to the bank for the next 10 years and end his career like a schmuck, in a schmuck market.
Hope for the sake of hockey that i'm wrong. What a combeack story he could make if he proved everyone wrong. But… i just don't see that happening.
reinjosh says:
Funny, a Chicago based ESPN blogger claiming he knows that Luongo doesn't want to be in a pressure cooker market. There are som any things wrong with this it isn't funny. For one it's ESPN, which is notoriously bad with hockey. Two it's a blogger which carries about zero journalistic credibility. Three the guy is from Chicago and clearly biased.
Luongo gets a lot of crap in the hockey world and I'm not sure why. He's much better than people give him credit. His cap hit is pretty awesome. His contract length sucks but he's clearly one of the most consistent goalies in the league.
mojo19 says:
Try to name a bigger choker… maybe Bryzgalov?
When has he choked? The Olympic Medal Game when Parise scored? Watch the goal. It's sort of hard to defend against two undefended players in front of your net after you stop the first shot…choker that does not make him.
The playoff run to the Stanley Cup Final? His whole team choked, he was hardly the only one (and I'd say he wasn't at all responsible for the Stalney Cup Final meltdown).
Those two events make him a choker? Come on, give me a break.
The Parise goal was bad, although at the tike I saw it coming. Lu had been fighting the puck all game.
The behind the net goal against Nashville, then the shot from the corner the following game. Both goals in the clutch dying minutes. Pulled 3 times in a 7-game cup final, giving up too many bad goals to count, and you say its "not his fault". Look if you just choose not to see it were gonna have to agree to disagree.
I was never a Lu basher before. I pretty much call it like I see it with him. I've become a basher because of the ignorant support of Luongo from Leaf fans. I'm really worried that he might wear the Blue and White.
Actually Josh, I'm really surprised that you of all people on here are in favour of Lu, despite his struggles the last few years. You and I both know hockey is played on the ice, not on paper.
I've watched him many times and trust me, the "lapses" you speak of, are no different than any other goalie that has ever played this game. It's part of the position, bad angle shots come at you and get through. Nary has a goalie existed where this sort of thing didn't happen. Ever seen Rinne play? The guy does the exact same thing, if not worse than Luongo does. It's infuriating but he's still one of the 3 best goalies in the game right now.
Like Steven said, it's part of the position. Goalies aren't perfect and they go through periods of struggle. Luongo is a high calibre goalie and has been for a long time. He's certainly a top 10 goalie in my mind and I honestly cannot agree with your indications of him being a mere "15-25ish solid starter".
He is so much more than that. And yeah stats aren't everything but can you honestly tell me that being that consistent for that long is lucky or just his team.
It's beyond logic to me that a goalie who in 12 seasons has only 3 seasons below a .917 save percentage, and none under .913 (while playing for a pretty crappy Florida team too) is merely a "solid starter".
Since the lockout, he's been top 14 or better in all but one season (where he was 18). In 3 of those season he was top 5 or better. In one he was top 10.
There are very few goalies in this league that are that good, that consistently. Lundqvist, Backstrom and Thomas are about the only ones that have been anywhere near that type of consistency. None else have been
Steven_Leafs0 says:
lol all you Luongo bashes always use the same 2 arguments to pick Luongo apart. Every goalie in the league had 2 major fuck-ups, heck every goalie in the league has dozens.
No goalie is perfect and sometimes they don't play 100%. You cannot hope for a goalie to play bad only at the right times, sometimes they play like that in the playoffs.
I mean would you consider Fleury a shitty goalie for his play this year and if the Leafs could get him for the crappy packages we are offering for Luongo would you turn it down?
The fact is Luongo is the best option right now if we can get him for the right price. And arguing he is too streaky is a bad one especially (correct me if I'm wrong) if you consider Reimer the future of the Leafs. I and most would call his play at the end of the year something much worse than streaky and yet people still think he is worth giving another shot.
Now I'm not saying that you have to like or want Luongo on the Leafs, it is ok if you don't, but we gotta stop using streaky as an argument especially when the guy we want/need has done nothing but win.
And just for fun a list of goalies that have been "streaky" in their careers:
I think you get the point. lol. 😛
Like I said, Fleury has that "extra gear" which makes up for his consistency issues, ditto for Ward, Lu is more like a Jimmy Howard type, in that he can be great for hit stretches but is not a clutch goalie, not a guy with that so called extra gear. He's a loser, plain and simple.
thisgamewelose says:
But you'd surely take Jimmy Howard on your team, no?
Shoelesshobo says:
I am not going to praise or put down Jimmy Howard until I see him without the Detroit defense. As of right now Detroit lost two MAJOR cogs on D and we will see if Howard is a starter goalie and one of the better in the league.
As per Mojo. While I would not say I am all for going after Luongo I have to say he is the best option out there. I mean ideally we missed our chance when we never signed Vokoun. That right there was our best chance at some goalie stability but that ship has sailed now. Like people have said Goalies choke I mean it happens. That being said I am really now looking towards what Reimer can do with a good rest and a clear bill of health. If he can return to his form then I don't see why we could not clench 6 to 8 seed. If Gillis is willing to go into the year with Lu on his payroll as a backup let the man do it. Just going to turn a bad situation worse.
Not huge on Howard, he's solid but unspectacular.
toronto77 says:
I wouldn't say his team chocked and bailed out on him, it's the other way around. Vancouver got killed in all 3 games in Boston, and the game was basically out of reach by the end of the 1st period in all 3. Luongo let in A LOT of softies. He crumbled what confidence the team had and they could never get it together in order to get back into the game.
Whenever a team loses a playoff round, the goalie hardly gets the blame as he is usually the most important player on the team and the players have a lot of respect for him.
But Luongo on the other hand played a big part in the failure of the team. Though the rest of the team played like shit, he didn't give them a lot of support, even Leighton and Niemi had better performances in 2010.
Correct, Toronto77. Everyone else read that post, its 100% accurate. Sorry to tell you Luongo fan-boys.
by that reasoning Fleury is a POS goalie because of his pitiful series against Philadelphia. He let in bad goals and never gave his team a chance to win.
In fact comparing those 2 different series Fleury's team at least could produce and if Fleury did play well they would have crushed Phily, Vancouver on the other hand most likely would have lost most if not all of those games.
Even with that Fleury would be on everyone's want list if he was made available.
I'll say it again because I'm guessing no one remembers why this all started. I never said Luongo was the best goalie in the league, and I understand why some people would not want him on the Leafs but the fact is Luongo is arguably top 10 in the league and would not only make the Leafs better but give them a shot to play for a cup (the rest of the team has to be good enough too but that is true with or without Luongo).
And you have to admit, he is the best goalie available. The 2nd best is Bernier and Bernier hasn't proven anything and could possibly be another Raycroft (I don't think he will be but that is a possibility).
Fleury is very hot and cold, always has been. When hes hot, he's better than Lu could ever be. The rest of the time they're pretty much the same shit.
hahahahahaha, Fleury is shit, that was funny
razer1818 says:
Well for starters As a Leaf fan I want yes I WANT Luongo in TO. Would love to see Bobby Lu in the Blue and white. This will not be the first time the Leafs took a chance on what is said to be a goalie th is "WASHED UP or ON HIS WAY OUT" The leafs did this with fan Favourite Cojo and Eddie the Eagle, both said to be past their prime. If history is to repeat its self god i cant wait to see Luongo in the Blue and white.
Except Cujo and Eddie were top end goalies. Big difference.
that doesn't make any sense, how is Luongo not a top end goalie? At best you can say Cujo was a better all time goalie but that would only be arguable especially if we look at the stats:
-Both have an Olympic Gold (Cujo wasn't the starting goalie, I believe he got benched after the first game and lost his spot to Brodeur)
-Both have similar playoff records (GAA / Sv%)
-Luongo has a better regular season record
-Luongo lead his team to the SC finals. Cujo did not.
So yeah Luongo is definitely better than Cujo by those standards and they are pretty damn good standards.
Not a top end goalie… lol.
dumbassdoorman says:
I loved how hard Cujo played for the Leafs, but he was a choker. He let in bad goals at bad times, I mean he couldn't even win in Detroit…..and that wwas a helluva team. Plus Cujo didn't come to the Leafs as washed up, at least not the first time….lol. But they are comparable goalies for sure.
They are very comparable. Cujo was a huge choker. I'll never forget that islanders series in '02 (Adrian Aucoin anyone?)
Steve, stop listing team accomplishments and crediting Lu. Niemi is by your definition better than both.
fine then don't look at the awards and the accomplishments, just look at the stats. Even with a shitty Florida team he put up great numbers. I guess you think that means nothing too?
Heck by your reasoning I bet you think Brodeur is/was a useless goalie? I mean he did lose his spot to Luongo in the Olympics and isn't Luongo a washed up loser even though he is producing the exact same way he did 2+ years ago?
No Steve, I think Luongo was great in Florida. I think he was a top 3-4 goalie in the league with Florida. Problem is, that was a long time ago and he doesn't play up to that level anymore. The reason you love him so much is because he used to be great.
maybe that is true, he used to be a President's Trophy winner and that I feel is an incredible accomplishment and IMO made him a great goalie, at the very least a highly skilled goaltender…. oh wait. lol
Giguere is roughly the same age and his accomplishments by far out weigh Lu's. Since you're only interested in the name power, pedigree, and resume your top targets *should be Thomas and Giggy…but they're not, because you just like Lu. It's cool, everyone has their favourite players, but its easy to over rate them and sometimes difficult to admit or realize their short-comings. You gotta stop living in the past and realize that Roberto Luongo 2012 is not Bobby Lu 2004.
right because Luongo in 2012 is not Luongo in 2011 right? Get over yourself.
You go on about me not being able to realize Luongo's true value and yet your to stupid to realize that Luongo is a good goalie.
You say Luongo is not the same goalie he was when he was younger, no kidding moron of course not. Brodeur isn't the same goalie he was in 2004 either but he is still elite and he would still make the Leafs exponentially better in goal for next season.
Luongo is a good goalie… fact.
He makes the Leafs a better team… another fact.
Would we be better off with a young version of Luongo or better? Of course we would but there is no such goalie available. Bernier is the closest but he proved less than lets say Raycroft proved when we traded for him.
Luongo is the best goalie available, if he can be picked up for a cap dump, a prospect or 2 we don't give a crap about, and non-1st round picks then we have to do it to make us a playoff team.
nordiques100 says:
i prefer Bernier over Luongo but i think Mojo your reasoning is a bit off the wall in thinking Luongo is absolute shit.
Your hatred is like he slept with your wife hatred. Beat up your kids hatred. We get it that you absolutely hate this guy, but cmon, Luongo is a proven, top goalie.
he to me, isn't worth giving up their 1st rounder and Kulemin for.
but….if the Canucks reduce their demands, and accept a similar package as what was offered for Bernier, I wouldn't mind it.
You simply cannot be that ignorant to believe Luongo isnt better than what the Leafs have had since the lockout. You simply can't.
I don't hate him, I'm just calling it like I see it. I've seen him let in way too many brutal goals in key situations. I have zero interest. If you don't see it (probably because he was great a long time ago, and you're looking at the name on the back of the jersey and not the goals allowed) that's too bad for you.
I am intrigued if the Bernier offer rumor is true. Also for the record Burke had stated they kicked tires on young goalies but didn't like them, for those who are going to claim he is lying and back tracking.
He's not doing his job if he is not kicking tires on all players.
He's been full of bull since he first started. "my teams build from the goal out".
Taking his word as gospel is ignorant. Man has a job to do to make the Leafs better. He'll do it whatever way is sensible and reasonable.
If Luongo is an unreasonable price (to me, a 1st and Kulemin is completely unreasonable just so they can rid themselves of Komisarek), good on him to explore other options if they are out there.
Fantasy Hockey Coach
Mofo Sports
Offside Sports
Spectors Rumors
The Feeder
Brian Burke
CanadianTeamNews
Chicago Black Hawks
Colombus Blue Jackets
Cory Perry
Defenseman
GM Coach
HTR Feature Article
HTR Fun
HTR Pool
HTRTopStory
L.A. Kings
Lindy Ruff
Opinion/Speculation
Phil Kessel
Ryan Getzlaf
Ryan O'Reilly
Stephen Weiss
Unsigned Free Agents
© 2020 NHL Hockey Trade Rumors


Shift to a semi–dedicated hosting alternative with merely a click at a killer cost. Handle your server through an easy–to–work–with Control Panel interface. Host unlimited domains and databases. Take advantage of as much as 2 CPU cores. A 99.9% server uptime is warranted. There won't be any setup charges whatsoever.
Examine our services with a 30 days free of charge trial. No payment required.
Ask us anything. We are right here for you 24/7/365.
Just waiting for hours to have a response from the help support team can be pretty frustrating, regardless of how trivial the situation is. That is why, right here, at LiquidNet Ltd Hosting, we give a one–hour answer time frame guarantee, and our skilled technicians normally reply within just 20 mins via the ticket system included in the Web App Installer. They're out there for you day and night.
A dedicated IP is bundled at no cost with the semi-dedicated 2 set-up. You'll be able to put it to use as soon as you gain access to the Web Control Panel. With a dedicated IP, you will have the ability to improve the uniqueness of your site, to quickly set up an SSL certificate for your site, and even configure your own name servers that will point to your unique IP address.
Plus, if at any time you need an additional IP address, you can always have it at a discount cost straight from your Web Control Panel.
With our Semi-dedicated 2 plan you will have SSH access to the server, bundled at zero cost. In this way, you will be able to promptly connect to the server's terminal and interact straight with the machine, without the need to utilize the Web Control Panel.
Due to the specificity of the semi-dedicated plans, the SSH access rights won't offer root privileges. You'll be able to to interact with your files, databases, email and almost everything connected with your web sites, however, you won't be able to modify the server's setup.
Making use of our tailor–made semi-dedicated plans offering lots of options, you may easily run your content–loaded sites in the cloud at an inexpensive cost. The server strain is spread among multiple servers, so you'll never struggle with low data transfer speeds and networking disruptions. With almost unrestricted disk space and traffic amounts, you don't really need to keep worrying about any of your sites. Every server includes point'n'click Web App Installer, through which you can very easily apply the readily available options.
No setup charges in addition to a 99.9% availability warranty with each semi–dedicated server. Free–of–cost Control Panel with unrestricted hosted domains.
Have a look at LiquidNet Ltd Hosting's prices and pick out the ideal semi–dedicated server for your growing web sites. Advance to a more advanced server configuration with simply a click.
Contact us whenever you want by email or through our Control Panel integrated ticketing platform. 1–hour reply time frame warranty.


text:
drop table if exists vfheap;
create table vfheap (a, b, c) as
select 1, i, repeat('x', 1000) from generate_series(1, 100)i distributed by (a);
analyze vfheap;
create index ivfheap on vfheap(b, c);

-- delete half of table
delete from vfheap where b between 0 and (select count(*) / 2 from vfheap);
select pg_relation_size('vfheap') from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;
select pg_relation_size('ivfheap') from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;

-- show pages are truncated
-- GPDB-specific: VACUUM FULL on heap gives proper relpages and reltuples
select relname, relpages, reltuples, gp_segment_id from gp_dist_random('pg_class') where oid = 'vfheap'::regclass;
vacuum full vfheap;
select relname, relpages, reltuples, gp_segment_id from gp_dist_random('pg_class') where oid = 'vfheap'::regclass;
select pg_relation_size('vfheap') from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;
select pg_relation_size('ivfheap') from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;

select max(b), min(length(c)) from vfheap;

-- check relpages and reltuples
select relname, relpages, reltuples from gp_dist_random('pg_class') where (oid = 'vfheap'::regclass or oid = 'ivfheap'::regclass) and gp_segment_id = 1;

-- just for the sake of code coverage, one more shot of vacuum full
vacuum full vfheap;

-- delete completely, size becomes 0, reducing index too
delete from vfheap;
vacuum full vfheap;
select pg_relation_size('vfheap') from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;
select pg_relation_size('ivfheap') from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;

-- check relpages and reltuples (VACUUM FULL clears them)
select relname, relpages, reltuples from gp_dist_random('pg_class') where (oid = 'vfheap'::regclass or oid = 'ivfheap'::regclass) and gp_segment_id = 1;

-- again, but delete second half
insert into vfheap select 1, i, repeat('x', 1000) from generate_series(1, 100)i;
delete from vfheap where b between (select count(*) / 2 from vfheap) and (select count(*) from vfheap);
select pg_relation_size('vfheap') from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;
select pg_relation_size('ivfheap') from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;

-- show pages are truncated
vacuum full vfheap;
select pg_relation_size('vfheap') from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;
select pg_relation_size('ivfheap') from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;

select max(b), min(length(c)) from vfheap;

-- also make sure toast is truncated
drop table if exists vfheaptoast;
create table vfheaptoast (a, b, c) as
select 1, i, array(select generate_series(1, 10000)) from generate_series(1, 100)i;
analyze vfheaptoast;

select pg_relation_size((select reltoastrelid from pg_class where oid = 'vfheaptoast'::regclass)) from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;

delete from vfheaptoast where b between 0 and (select count(*) / 2 from vfheaptoast);
vacuum full vfheaptoast;

select pg_relation_size((select reltoastrelid from pg_class where oid = 'vfheaptoast'::regclass)) from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;

select max(b), min(length(array_to_string(c, ','))) from vfheaptoast;

delete from vfheaptoast;
vacuum full vfheaptoast;

select pg_relation_size((select reltoastrelid from pg_class where oid = 'vfheaptoast'::regclass)) from gp_dist_random('gp_id') where gp_segment_id = 1;

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Health Bill [HL] – in the House of Lords at 3:16 pm on 12th May 2009.
All Lords debates on 12 May 2009
Division number 1
Clause 1 : NHS Constitution
Amendment 1
Moved by Lord Darzi of Denham
1: Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert "or (Other revisions of NHS Constitution)"
Hansard source (Citation: HL Deb, 12 May 2009, c928)
Lord Darzi of Denham Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 2 to 10. On Report, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, tabled an amendment to ensure that Parliament is given an opportunity to scrutinise any changes to the guiding principles set out in the NHS Constitution. In the government amendments that I bring forward now, we have accepted the principle of the amendment but suggest an alternative form of wording to ensure that it fits with the existing clauses. These amendments require the Secretary of State to make regulations, under the negative resolution procedure, to address any changes to the guiding principles set out in the NHS Constitution.
Although they may look extensive, the amendments are minor and technical. They make it clear that regulations must be laid whether principles are changed as a result of the 10-yearly review of the constitution or as a result of more periodic revisions. To achieve that, they make clearer the distinction between a review and a revision, and correct cross-references.
Any changes to the guiding principles in the future would already require consultation, as we set out in the Bill from the start. However, I have listened to the concerns of the House about the role of Parliament in determining the guiding principles, and the amendments address those concerns. I hope that noble Lords are content with these amendments and I beg to move.
Earl Howe Shadow Minister, Health
My Lords, I very much appreciate the Government's acceptance of the underlying principle of the amendment carried by your Lordships on Report, and of course I accept the reformulation proposed by the Minister.
The fear that some people had that an amendment of this kind might open the floodgates to litigation against the NHS was never one that I considered to be well founded. I still do not believe that. It would have validity if the scope of these amendments were to extend more widely than they do—if, for example, they were to embrace specific rights. However, in so far as the guiding principles are already underpinned by existing primary legislation, there cannot reasonably be a fear that, by linking the constitution directly to the parliamentary process, we will be creating the potential for a lawyers' charter.
As I said, I am most grateful to the Minister for having given this matter his close consideration and for having brought forward these amendments. I hope that they will be accepted.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Conservative
My Lords, I strongly support what has been said. It is extremely good that the Minister has felt able to modify the Bill in this way. A lawyers' charter is not a particularly fearsome prospect for me. However, the best protection against lawyers' charters is clear drafting, and these amendments are clearly drafted.
Amendment 1 agreed.
Clause 2: Core principles
2: Clause 2, leave out Clause 2
Clause 4: Availability, review and revision of NHS Constitution
Amendments 3 to 7
3: Clause 4, page 3, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3)
4: Clause 4, page 3, line 15, after "Constitution (" insert "referred to in this Chapter as"
5: Clause 4, page 3, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) The guiding principles may not be revised as a result of a 10 year review, except in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the revision to be made."
6: Clause 4, page 3, line 26, at end insert "made as a result of a 10 year review"
""the guiding principles" means—
(a) the 7 principles described in the NHS Constitution published on 21 January 2009 as "the principles that guide the NHS", or
(b) any revised version of those principles set out in the NHS Constitution published under this section or section (Other revisions of NHS Constitution);"
Amendments 3 to 7 agreed.
8: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
"Other revisions of NHS Constitution
(1) This section applies to any revision of the NHS Constitution made other than as a result of a 10 year review (including any such revision which revises the guiding principles).
(2) Before any revision the Secretary of State must undertake appropriate consultation about the proposed revision.
(3) The persons consulted must include such patients, staff, members of the public and other persons as appear to the Secretary of State to be affected by the proposed revision.
(4) The guiding principles may not be revised, except in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the revision to be made.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish the NHS Constitution after any revision."
Clause 5: Availability, review and revision of Handbook
9: Clause 5, page 4, line 12, at end insert "(whether made as a result of a review under this section or otherwise)"
10: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
"Regulations under section 4 or (Other revisions of NHS Constitution)
(1) The power to make regulations under section 4 or (Other revisions of NHS Constitution) is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under either of those sections is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
Amendment 10 agreed.
Clause 10: Direct payments for health care
11: Clause 10, page 7, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) as to arrangements to be made by the Secretary of State or the Primary Care Trust for providing patients, payees or their representatives with information, advice or other support in connection with direct payments;
( ) for such support to be treated to any prescribed extent as a service in respect of which direct payments may be made."
My Lords, these amendments clarify our intentions around supporting patients and reviewing the pilot schemes. Having listened to the excellent debates on Report and in Grand Committee, I promised to consider these issues further, and I have consulted the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I hope these amendments address noble Lords' concerns.
Amendment 11 would make it more explicit on the face of the Bill that the NHS should make arrangements to ensure that patients, or people receiving direct payments on someone else's behalf, are able to access advice, information, and other support. As I have said in earlier debates, having proper support in place is vital for the success of this policy, and support could be delivered in many ways. The pilot proposals we have received contain a range of innovative ideas. We want to allow for flexibility rather than prescribe a particular approach.
The amendment will allow our regulations to be broad enough to allow innovation to flourish, while ensuring that people are well supported. It will also allow patients to buy support services using their direct payments. Some people have suggested that PCTs should commission and pay for support services centrally. Others have proposed including an element within the personal health budget to allow patients to choose the support that is right for them. It is likely that different approaches will work in different circumstances, and this amendment gives us the flexibility to test both.
Amendment 12 clarifies how we intend to evaluate direct payments. The first part highlights our objective to commission and publish an independent evaluation. Noble Lords may know that the department recently published a detailed invitation to tender for the evaluation of the personal health budgets pilot programme. We hope to have a team of independent researchers in place by the summer.
I emphasise that every pilot site will be involved in the evaluation. In practice, it is likely that a representative subset of the pilots, chosen by the evaluation team, will be examined in great detail, while the other sites contribute information. This will give both breadth and depth to the analysis.
The evaluation will, of course, specifically consider the effect of direct payments as a mechanism for delivering personal health budgets. The findings of the evaluation will be published. Moreover, before the Government can extend direct payments more widely, each House of Parliament must give its express approval, through the affirmative resolution procedure.
The second proposed new subsection in the amendment allows the Government to specify in regulations some of the issues the review should address. These include reviewing the administration of the schemes, the effect of direct payments on the cost or quality of care, and the impact on the behaviour of patients, carers and providers.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is particularly concerned about the potential effect of personal budgets on other services, particularly the effect on smaller specialised service providers. The amendment is deliberately worded in a general way to emphasise that we intend to examine the effect of direct payments both on the people who receive them and on those who do not. Our invitation to tender makes that clear.
Amendment 13 is a technical amendment, reflecting the addition of these paragraphs in new Section 12C. We have listened to the points raised in the debate and I believe that these government amendments respond to them. They provide explicit reassurance that we intend there to be a proper support in place for people receiving direct payments, and that the evaluation should be rigorous and independent. I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker Spokesperson for Health
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, for tabling these amendments. They are the product of intense discussions between the department and myself. I am most grateful that we have achieved a resolution of matters which although technical and boring are of great importance to the working of this policy. I am delighted to be able to do so in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, because those who sat through our discussions will see her hand in this amendment in the inclusion of the word "support". She took me to task on my original proposals and she made them better. I am therefore pleased that this represents a victory for her, too.
I do not want to restate the arguments we had during previous stages. I am pleased that the noble Lord has seen the importance of requiring primary care trusts to pay attention to the provision of these services, not least because in the department's own advice and guidance to commissioners, it talks about reliance on existing services such as the CAB. When these pilots take place, those services will be going through a great deal of upheaval and may not be readily accessible to people.
As regards the review, I thank the Minister for his explanation and for sharing with me the detailed spec for the review process. However, I seek clarification from him on one point. He talked about the wording of the amendment, enabling the research to focus not only on those patients who receive direct payments, but also on those who do not. I would welcome his confirmation that the wording of the amendment is such that it would not be a matter of looking only at those patients who do or do not receive direct payments for the same service, but looking at the impact of a service which is funded by direct payment on other parts of the health service. That is the point that I have been trying to make for the past week.
I am under no illusion that it will be an extremely complex piece of research. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, talked about the need to research the cost of direct payments, but to research the cost-effectiveness of direct payments will require a level of monitoring and accountancy, and sophistication in those, which is as yet unseen. We need properly to be able to answer the question, "Does the move towards direct payments and individual budgets not only benefit patients in terms of the outcomes of those services, but decrease reliance on other services in the NHS?". That is a critical part of the issue. From what the Minister has said, I believe that he will be able to give me a satisfactory answer. With that in mind, I thank him very much for the work that he has done to get us to this point.
Earl Howe Shadow Minister, Health 3:30 pm, 12th May 2009
My Lords, these amendments immensely strengthen this part of the Bill, and reflect a key part of the concerns raised at earlier stages from all parts of the House, including mine. Like the noble Baroness, I very much welcome all these amendments, especially Amendment 11, which seems to address an aspect of the direct payment scheme that is likely to prove central to its uptake and success, namely the provision of,
"information, advice or other support", for those who decide to try that scheme. I hope that these amendments will be accepted.
My Lords, I am grateful for the support that these amendments have received. To clarify the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, the tender for the evaluation is based on five broad areas: the effects on individual outcomes, including carers and informal carers; the behavioural change on both individuals and NHS staff; finances and cost-effectiveness; system effects, including impact on staff and other existing services, and how personal budgets have been implemented. It covers a wide range of services, so I very much hope to have reassured the noble Baroness.
Amendments 12 and 13
"( ) Provision as to the review of a pilot scheme may in particular include provision—
(a) for a review to be carried out by an independent person;
(b) for publication of the findings of a review;
(c) as to matters to be considered on a review.
( ) Those matters may in particular include any of the following—
(a) the administration of the scheme;
(b) the effect of direct payments on the cost or quality of care received by patients;
(c) the effect of direct payments on the behaviour of patients, carers or persons providing services in respect of which direct payments are made."
13: Clause 10, page 8, line 30, leave out "carrying out"
Amendments 12 and 13 agreed.
Clause 13 : Innovation prizes
14: Clause 13, page 10, line 1, after "to" insert "—
(a) work at any stage of innovation (including research);
(b) "
My Lords, on Report, the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, tabled an important amendment that sought to make it clear that innovation prizes would encompass research. It has always been our intention that prizes would include research; innovation is a broad concept, of which research is a vital part. The purpose of the innovation challenge prizes is to recognise and promote excellence in innovation, including research. I am grateful to the noble Lords for our useful discussions on the matter and hope that this amendment puts that important point beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant Crossbench
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that, and for the opportunity that he gave us to meet him and members of the Bill team last Thursday. I was concerned to express the fact at Second Reading—and again in Committee and on Report—that the responsibility of the National Health Service for the education and training of healthcare professionals was not formally acknowledged in the Bill. However, after our discussions I am sufficiently reassured that any revision of the NHS Constitution and other issues would take full account of the needs and concerns of those involved in such education and training. In the light of those assurances, then, the amendment that we had considered tabling for Third Reading has proved unnecessary.
At the same time, I expressed the concern that had been conveyed to me—not least, by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Association of Medical Research Charities—that the word "research" did not formally appear in the Bill. All innovation is, in many respects, dependent on research. Whether the innovation is physical, social, behavioural, scientific, or whatever its nature, achieving it depends on a background of inquiry and research. For that reason, I believe that the amendment meets our concerns precisely, and I am delighted to see it now come into the Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Crossbench
My Lords, I do not wish to reiterate the words of my noble friend Lord Walton, except to add my thanks to the Minister for having listened so attentively and worked with us to make sure that "research" appears in the Bill. For the record, I also thank him for his recognition that research might originate outside England—for example, in Wales—but result in excellent innovation in England, and that Welsh researchers would not be denied credit simply because their research was done on the other side of Offa's Dyke.
As we have come to the end of the government amendments to the Bill, I take this opportunity, on behalf of all patients waiting for transplants and on behalf of their families who struggle with the difficulties of transplants, to thank the Minister and the Bill team most sincerely. Although not directly relevant to the amendment, the guidance on the preferential donation principle, which I introduced earlier, is now being taken forward. I have had the privilege of being able to comment on the confidential draft guidance and it looks satisfactory. When linked to the training of transplant co-ordinators, I think it will greatly improve donation rates. I hope that those families with the rare situation which I outlined will ensure that the wishes of the person who died are respected. I am most grateful to the Minister and his team.
Moved by Baroness Meacher
15: After Clause 32, insert the following new Clause—
"Private health care
(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 (c. 41) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 44 (private health care), after subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for exceptions to be permitted to the restriction mentioned in subsection (2) subject to the principle that any such exception must in all the circumstances be in the interests of the National Health Service.
(4B) The regulations may specify such other principles and conditions as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.""
Baroness Meacher Crossbench
My Lords, Amendment 15 seeks to enable health trusts to develop private health services outside the private patient cap on condition that they are, in all the circumstances, in the interests of the National Health Service. I must declare an interest as the chair of a mental health foundation trust in east London and I make it clear that my own trust will not plan any changes in its own practice whether or not this amendment becomes law.
The new clause leaves the private patient cap in place, although I believe that as soon as possible it needs to be replaced by a new framework. As we debated in Committee and on Report, the cap varies from one trust to another. I shall not repeat our earlier debates; suffice it to say that the cap is well recognised to be illogical and unhelpful. By providing for exceptions, the amendment opens up an opportunity for rational decision-making as long as the interests of the NHS are served. Introducing that one principle into the Bill is something to which all sides of the House would subscribe.
I hope that proposed new subsection (4B) in the amendment will enable Ministers to introduce regulations which will extend important principles to all private patient service developments, and not only to services developed over and above the level allowed by the cap. Examples would include the principle that private patient services will not be subsidised by the NHS and the principle that those services will not dilute or adversely affect the core values of the NHS. In my view, both are crucial principles but they are absent from the 2006 Act.
A further powerful argument in favour of the amendment is that it will enable the NHS to benefit from the considerable export opportunities provided by our highly respected NHS clinicians. We can ill afford to squander that opportunity. The amendment would protect the NHS, while increasing flexibility. I beg to move.
My Lords, I cannot add very much to what the noble Baroness has said. The virtue of this amendment, as drafted, is that it would allow the Government to make changes to the rules governing the private patient income cap at a time entirely of their choosing. It would not tie the Government down and it would allow Ministers to reformulate these rules in whatever way they decide, as long as any changes conform to the key principle spelt out in the amendment. In the absence of any likely legislative vehicle for making a change of this kind, at least in the near future, I hope that the amendment will be considered seriously by the Government.
Lord Campbell-Savours Labour
My Lords, I very much hope that my noble friend will reject this amendment for the reasons which were very carefully put by a number of us in Committee. These are incredibly sensitive matters for the House of Commons. When the original legislation went through, undertakings were clearly given by Ministers in the Commons to our Back-Benchers which enabled them to vote for the whole principle enshrined in foundation trust status. I hope that my noble friend is not tempted in any way to re-enter that discussion. If these matters are to be considered, it should be on the back of primary legislation which starts in the House of Commons, where Members can then consider them in Committee and they can be dealt with comprehensively before they enter this place. I hope that my noble friend will not take this opportunity to amend the law in any way in this area.
Lord Warner Labour
My Lords, I support the amendment, to which I have put my name. I declare two interests. I was the Minister who moved the offending clause in the 2003 Act in this House. As I said on Report, I repent my sins. I do so again. I will explain why I differ from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. First, I must declare an interest as an adviser to the General Healthcare Group, which is a private hospital. It is in no way asking me to support this amendment; I have had no conversations with the General Healthcare Group about it. I am doing this because I think that the legislation, as framed, is wrong and detrimental to the NHS.
Why do I think that? First, the world has moved on since we passed the legislation in 2003. There was a different set of circumstances then. We now know that foundation trusts are an important part of the NHS landscape. They have proved very successful. If you look at the Healthcare Commission's ratings, foundation trusts are in many ways extremely successful because of the excellence of their services and their management of financial resources. There were, if we are honest, doubts about foundation trusts at the time that this legislation was passed. Some of those doubts were expressed in the issue of a private patient cap. That is no longer the context in which we are dealing with this.
The cap itself has been arbitrary. It chooses a base year when people were in different positions in terms of their private incomes. The consequence of that definition has been that whether particular trusts are caught by the cap is almost random. I do not make a major claim about this, but it has in a few cases prevented an NHS trust getting foundation trust status because its business case depended—partly because of its international reputation—on growing private practice, usually from overseas earnings that would benefit the NHS. Legislation that is supposed to protect the NHS is, in my view, damaging it. We are moving into a financial climate where the NHS—if I may put it as gently as this—will need every penny that it can get to meet public expectations, which always continue to rise in our modern world, and some of the demographic challenges that it will face. It seems a bit of an own goal to restrict the ability of NHS trusts to marshal their activities, without detriment to NHS patients, so that they can generate some income from this.
My noble friends have said that the case is now under judicial review at the High Court, so it is difficult to deal with this; we should wait for the judgments and then move the legislation that may need to be put in place. I have always found that the courts welcome clarity from the Executive about what their policy intents are. This is not to prejudge the case that is before the High Court, and which was, as I recall, taken apart by UNISON. However, it would be helpful for the Government to be absolutely clear about where they stand on this issue. The issue seems to be one of making it very clear that there is a public acceptance that the present cap is arbitrary and unfair; and that there is a willingness on the part of the Government, at an appropriate time, to make changes that will make it fairer and will not stop the NHS benefiting from raising income from private patients—without detriment to NHS patients—which could provide extra income to develop NHS services. I would like much more clarity on this issue because the worst of all worlds would be a judicial judgment which is more restrictive than what we have at the moment, and that cannot be beyond peradventure. We need to be clear about the Government's position so that we do not end up with an even more restrictive cap and no legislative opportunity to change things back, even to where we thought they were in 2003.
That is why I support the amendment. I hope that we will have some reassurance from the Government on this issue.
Baroness Barker Spokesperson for Health 3:45 pm, 12th May 2009
My Lords, during our earlier deliberations I had a great deal of sympathy with the position put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. My name is on the amendment and the reason for that is very simple. We could debate how foundation trusts operate in great detail and at considerable length—as we did during the passage of the legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has just referred—but, ultimately, proposed new subsection (4A) contains the key point, that any private-patient work must be in the interests of the NHS. However long we continue to debate this issue in great detail, I am persuaded that that is the critical point, and the fact that we have agreement across the House on it is important. Another important point is the arbitrary nature of the way in which the cap is working and the problems that it creates for mental health trusts in particular. Those two factors alone were sufficient to convince me that this is a move forward in the right direction.
My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that this relates not only to mental health trusts? This is a Trojan horse that could be used by a future Government to completely undermine whole areas of the National Health Service. I am astonished to find her name on this amendment.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland Crossbench
My Lords, I support the amendment because, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, we are in a very changing world. I shall refer only to the area of cross-border healthcare. The present amendments are opening up our thinking to the changes happening in health services. At the moment we have a minimal cross-border healthcare system but the European Union and the Commission are looking at developing it and that will be an added complication. Anything that frees up health trusts' ability to think through the provision of alternative ways of developing their services would be helpful. I therefore support the amendment.
My Lords, I, too, strongly support the amendment. My attitude may be coloured by my personal experience, but I look back to the time when Mrs Castle, later Baroness Castle, attempted to remove all private beds from all National Health Service hospitals. I was a whole-time NHS consultant with a personal chair and I had a major research unit studying neuromuscular diseases in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. In that city there were three major hospitals, each of which had one private bed. The result, to my great regret, was that I could not admit to hospital patients who were referred to me from other countries—patients from Australia, and even two from the United States—to take advantage of my unit's facilities for research and investigation. There were no private beds to which I could admit them and no private hospital in that city had anything like the facilities necessary for that particular purpose.
This cap was based on private income in hospitals in 2003, but the world has moved on since then. Particularly within our foundation hospitals, but also within our university departments, there are professorial units with innovative procedures and treatments that are being rapidly developed and could prove to be not only extremely important for patients—after all, let us not forget the large number of patients in the UK who are insured for private medical care—but also a very attractive possibility for patients coming to this country from overseas who must by law be private patients if they are admitted to hospitals in the National Health Service.
The present cap is proving to be outdated, illogical and detrimental to processes which could benefit the NHS by bringing in substantial additional finance to support its work. The amendment is cleverly phrased to indicate that:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for exceptions".
It rests with the Secretary of State,
"subject to the principle that any such exception must in all the circumstances be in the interests of the National Health Service".
That is a very satisfactory way to frame the amendment and I support it strongly.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Crossbench
My Lords, I would like to ask a question because of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said. Are there not very strong safeguards in this amendment to protect the National Health Service? I travelled back from Mauritius once with a young child whose face was covered with a terrible cancer. Would it not benefit that sort of patient to be given treatment in our hospitals, because their countries do not have the facilities? We must be a humane country.
Baroness Thornton Government Whip, Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
My Lords, Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, seeks to maintain the existing rules governing the private patient income cap for NHS foundation trusts. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to permit exceptions to the general rule. An exception could be permitted only if it was in the interests of the NHS to do so. The regulations can specify other conditions and principles on which such exemptions may be permitted.
The Government recognise the concerns which have been presented to us. We have also listened carefully to the views expressed in debate, not least that caps set by reference to historical income levels appear increasingly arbitrary. The Government sympathise with and understand the intention and spirit behind today's amendment.
In our previous debates on this issue I made clear the Government's desire for a wider debate on the cap. Following the outcome of the judicial review on the current legislation, it is our intention to begin a review to address precisely how to strike the right balance between protecting NHS services for NHS patients and allowing NHS foundation trusts the flexibility they need to operate effectively in the best interests of patients. This would mean a review of the cap and appropriate action to follow.
I turn to the specifics of the amendment. It is quite right that to change the cap would require primary legislation. However, I have genuine concerns about the approach that the amendment takes and about rushing into any quick legislative fix. I would like to take a few moments to set out some of the issues raised by the amendment and explain why a broader review following a clear process would be a better and more practical route to take and be in the best interests of the NHS.
As your Lordships know, this is a complex policy area. The fact that we have already discussed it twice, in Grand Committee and on Report, highlights both the range of views that need to be taken into account and the difficulty of crafting legislation.
The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make exceptions to the current cap. However, it would not remove the cap's underlying principle that the private income of a foundation trust should be restricted according to levels set in 2002-03. The Secretary of State would be able to use regulations under the amendment to create exemptions to the cap; for example, to allow mental health foundation trusts to carry out private patient work. However, legal advice is that those regulations could not be used to such an extent that the effect of the underpinning primary legislation was nullified. In short, we could not use exemptions to get rid of the underlying rule. The level playing field which was described in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, with a new system having an equal impact on both NHS and foundation trusts, would not be achieved.
As noble Lords will be aware, a judicial review is currently considering what income counts towards the cap. The Government are an interested party in the legal proceedings, so I will not comment on the interpretation of the current provisions. However, noble Lords will wish to be made aware that, even if this amendment were accepted, there would still be the issue of what income counts towards the cap. The court will give a judgment on that issue.
We might best describe this as a quick-fix solution, and I understand why people would be tempted by it, but it would not address the issues and underlying problems with the cap that we have discussed. We need a wholesale review of the underlying rule. The Government believe that the best way to reform the cap would be to create a new test or set of principles that would apply equally to all foundation trusts, reforming the rules so that they are clear, logical and work well. We are keen not to replicate the current situation with the cap from the 2003 Act by bringing in new primary legislation without first discussing and testing it thoroughly with the NHS—the people who will put the new arrangements into practice.
We have heard in our discussions the wide range of views on the issue. Key stakeholder organisations inside and outside the NHS should be given the opportunity to contribute to a debate on the design of the new framework which should begin as soon as the judicial review is complete. We should not try to reach a consensus quickly on what the future framework should look like without consulting foundation trusts from the outset. The reform of rules that impact directly on them, in the context of an evolving health policy framework, needs to be considered in the round.
We agree that private patient activity should not lead to a poorer service for NHS patients and that private income should subsidise NHS care and, therefore, be used to improve and widen NHS services. We also agree that NHS foundation trusts must above all preserve and promote the values of the NHS. We therefore need to go through a clear, fair, practical process to develop fully the best policy solution before we legislate—which we will of course do at the first opportunity once the approach has been agreed.
I repeat our commitment to take forward a review following the outcome of the current judicial review. This is the most sensible way of making sure that any new approach reflects the views of those affected and enables us to test those practical solutions. With this assurance in mind, and with thanks to noble Lords for the valuable contributions they have made to the discussion, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. I recognise that the amendment does not answer all the problems that the cap poses for the NHS—that is inevitable. However, the amendment does enable—quickly—some opportunities for rational decision-making that are not there at the moment.
The amendment clearly places in the Bill a principle that has the support of all sides of the House. I have been given assurances that there are people in the Government who do not have a problem with it, because it is going in the direction that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, indicated the Government want to go in. We are saying, "Let us take a step forward in the direction that the Government want to go".
When the Government are able to institute a review, we would all hope to be involved in it, contribute to it and support it. Then, if possible, a consensus can be found through a good consultation process in which all the issues can be resolved, and a set of principles wider than we are able to deal with today can be put into a future Bill. However, that is all for the future. There is no upcoming health Bill, and the issues are too important to leave for an unspecified opportunity in the future. NHS foundation trusts up and down the country are struggling with this. In my view, having the principle in the Bill will affect how people operate. We have boards of governors and members councils out there that will be watching this and will know that the principle is in the Bill—if we can get it in the Bill. Personally, as somebody who passionately believes in the NHS and NHS patients, I want—and we want—that principle in the Bill. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Division on Amendment 15
Contents 191; Not-Contents 133.
Division number 1 Health Bill [HL] — Third Reading
Aye: 189 Members of the House of Lords
No: 131 Members of the House of Lords
Lord Addington Liberal Democrat
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo Crossbench
Lord Alton of Liverpool Crossbench
Lord Ampthill Crossbench
Lord Astor of Hever Conservative
Lord Avebury Liberal Democrat
Lord Baker of Dorking Conservative
Baroness Barker Liberal Democrat
Lord Bates Conservative
Lord Best Crossbench
Lord Bew Crossbench
Lord Blackwell Conservative
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Liberal Democrat
Lord Bowness Conservative
Lord Boyce Crossbench
Lord Bradshaw Liberal Democrat
Viscount Bridgeman Conservative
Lord Bridges Crossbench
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Conservative
Viscount Brookeborough Crossbench
Lord Brougham and Vaux Conservative
Baroness Butler-Sloss Crossbench
Baroness Byford Conservative
The Earl of Caithness Conservative
Lord Cameron of Dillington Crossbench
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton Crossbench
Lord Carlile of Berriew Liberal Democrat
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Conservative
Earl Cathcart Conservative
Lord Chidgey Liberal Democrat
Lord Clement-Jones Liberal Democrat
Lord Cobbold Crossbench
Lord Colwyn Conservative
Lord Condon Crossbench
Lord Cope of Berkeley Conservative
Baroness Coussins Crossbench
Lord Craig of Radley Crossbench
Lord Crathorne Conservative
Lord Crickhowell Conservative
Lord Currie of Marylebone Crossbench
Baroness D'Souza Crossbench
Lord Denham Conservative
Lord Dholakia Liberal Democrat
Lord Dixon-Smith Conservative
The Earl of Dundee Conservative
Lord Dykes Liberal Democrat
Lord Eames Crossbench
Viscount Eccles Conservative
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Conservative
Lord Elton Conservative
Baroness Emerton Crossbench
Viscount Falkland Liberal Democrat
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Liberal Democrat
Lord Fearn Liberal Democrat
Earl Ferrers Conservative
Baroness Fookes Conservative
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Conservative
Lord Fowler Conservative
Baroness Garden of Frognal Liberal Democrat
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Conservative
Lord Geddes Conservative
The Earl of Glasgow Liberal Democrat
Lord Glenarthur Conservative
Lord Glentoran Conservative
Lord Goodhart Liberal Democrat
Lord Goodlad Conservative
Lord Greaves Liberal Democrat
Baroness Greengross Crossbench
Lord Greenway Crossbench
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach Conservative
Baroness Hamwee Liberal Democrat
Baroness Hanham Conservative
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Crossbench
Baroness Harris of Richmond Liberal Democrat
Lord Hayhoe Conservative
Lord Henley Conservative
Lord Higgins Conservative
Baroness Hooper Conservative
Lord Howard of Rising Conservative
Earl Howe Conservative
Lord Howe of Aberavon Conservative
Lord Howell of Guildford Conservative
Lord Inglewood Conservative
Lord James of Blackheath Conservative
Lord Jenkin of Roding Conservative
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Crossbench
Lord Kimball Conservative
Lord Kingsland Conservative
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope Liberal Democrat
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Conservative
Lord Lawson of Blaby Conservative
Lord Lee of Trafford Liberal Democrat
Lord Lewis of Newnham Crossbench
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone Liberal Democrat
The Earl of Listowel Crossbench
The Earl of Liverpool Conservative
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Liberal Democrat
Lord Lucas Conservative
Lord Luce Crossbench
Lord Luke Conservative
Lord Lyell Conservative
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market Conservative
Lord Mackie of Benshie Liberal Democrat
Baroness Maddock Liberal Democrat
Lord Mancroft Conservative
The Countess of Mar Crossbench
The Earl of Mar and Kellie Liberal Democrat
Lord Marlesford Conservative
Lord Mayhew of Twysden Conservative
Lord McColl of Dulwich Conservative
Lord McNally Liberal Democrat
Lord Methuen Liberal Democrat
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Liberal Democrat
Baroness Miller of Hendon Conservative
Lord Monson Crossbench
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Crossbench
The Duke of Montrose Conservative
Lord Moonie Labour
Baroness Morris of Bolton Conservative
Baroness Murphy Crossbench
Baroness Neuberger Liberal Democrat
Baroness Neville-Jones Conservative
Baroness Northover Liberal Democrat
Lord Norton of Louth Conservative
Baroness O'Cathain Conservative
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve Crossbench
The Earl of Onslow Conservative
Lord Palmer Crossbench
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Conservative
Lord Ramsbotham Crossbench
Baroness Rawlings Conservative
Lord Razzall Liberal Democrat
Lord Redesdale Liberal Democrat
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Conservative
Lord Roberts of Conwy Conservative
Lord Roberts of Llandudno Liberal Democrat
Lord Ryder of Wensum Conservative
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Crossbench
The Earl of Sandwich Crossbench
Baroness Seccombe Conservative
The Earl of Selborne Conservative
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Conservative
Lord Selsdon Conservative
Baroness Sharples Conservative
Lord Shaw of Northstead Conservative
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Conservative
Lord Skelmersdale Conservative
Viscount Slim Crossbench
Lord Smith of Clifton Liberal Democrat
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior Conservative
The Bishop of Southwark Bishop
The Earl of Stair Crossbench
Lord Steel of Aikwood Liberal Democrat
Lord Stewartby Conservative
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Independent Labour
Lord Strathclyde Conservative
Lord Tanlaw Crossbench
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Conservative
Lord Tebbit Conservative
Lord Teverson Liberal Democrat
Lord Thomas of Gresford Liberal Democrat
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Liberal Democrat
Baroness Thomas of Winchester Liberal Democrat
Lord Tope Liberal Democrat
Lord Trimble Conservative
Baroness Trumpington Conservative
Lord Tugendhat Conservative
Lord Tyler Liberal Democrat
Viscount Ullswater Conservative
Lord Vallance of Tummel Liberal Democrat
Baroness Verma Conservative
Lord Waddington Conservative
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Liberal Democrat
Lord Wallace of Tankerness Liberal Democrat
Baroness Walmsley Liberal Democrat
Lord Walpole Crossbench
Baroness Warnock Crossbench
Baroness Warsi Conservative
Lord Watson of Richmond Liberal Democrat
Baroness Williams of Crosby Liberal Democrat
Lord Williamson of Horton Crossbench
Lord de Mauley Conservative
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Conservative
Lord Shutt of Greetland Liberal Democrat
Lord Adonis Labour
Lord Ahmed Labour
Baroness Amos Labour
Lord Anderson of Swansea Labour
Baroness Andrews Labour
Lord Archer of Sandwell Labour
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster Crossbench
Lord Barnett Labour
Lord Berkeley Labour
Lord Bhatia Crossbench
Lord Bhattacharyya Labour
Lord Bilston Labour
Baroness Blood Labour
Lord Borrie Labour
Lord Bragg Labour
Lord Brett Labour
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Labour
Lord Browne of Belmont DUP
Lord Christopher Labour
Lord Clark of Windermere Labour
Lord Clarke of Hampstead Labour
Lord Clinton-Davis Labour
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Labour
Baroness Corston Labour
Baroness Crawley Labour
Lord Cunningham of Felling Labour
Lord Darzi of Denham Labour
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova Labour
Lord Davies of Coity Labour
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Labour
Baroness Deech Crossbench
Lord Desai Labour
Lord Dubs Labour
Lord Eatwell Labour
Lord Elder Labour
Lord Elystan-Morgan Crossbench
Lord Evans of Parkside Labour
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Labour
Lord Evans of Watford Labour
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Labour
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Labour
Lord Filkin Labour
Baroness Ford Other
Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland Labour
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Labour
Lord Fyfe of Fairfield Labour
Baroness Gale Labour
Lord Gavron Labour
Lord Gilbert Labour
Baroness Golding Labour
Lord Gordon of Strathblane Labour
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Labour
Lord Graham of Edmonton Labour
Lord Grantchester Labour
Lord Grocott Labour
Lord Harrison Labour
Lord Hart of Chilton Labour
Lord Haworth Labour
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Labour
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Labour
Baroness Howells of St Davids Labour
Lord Howie of Troon Labour
Lord Hoyle Labour
Lord Hughes of Woodside Labour
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Labour
Lord Irvine of Lairg Labour
Lord Jones Labour
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Labour
Lord Judd Labour
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Labour
Lord King of West Bromwich Labour
Baroness Kingsmill Labour
Lord Kirkhill Labour
Lord Lea of Crondall Labour
Lord Lipsey Labour
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract Labour
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Labour
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Labour
Lord Malloch-Brown Labour
Lord Mandelson Labour
Baroness Massey of Darwen Labour
Lord Maxton Labour
Baroness McDonagh Labour
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Labour
Lord McKenzie of Luton Labour
Lord Mitchell Labour
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Labour
Lord Morris of Aberavon Labour
Baroness Morris of Yardley Labour
Lord Myners Labour
Lord Parekh Labour
Lord Patel of Blackburn Labour
Lord Patel of Bradford Labour
Lord Paul Labour
Baroness Pitkeathley Labour
Lord Plant of Highfield Labour
Baroness Prosser Labour
Lord Prys-Davies Labour
Lord Puttnam Labour
Baroness Quin Labour
Lord Radice Labour
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Labour
Baroness Rendell of Babergh Labour
Lord Richard Labour
Lord Rosser Labour
Lord Rowlands Labour
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Labour
Lord Sawyer Labour
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Labour
Lord Sheldon Labour
Viscount Simon Labour
Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill Labour
Lord Smith of Leigh Labour
Lord Soley Labour
Lord Stone of Blackheath Labour
Lord Strabolgi Labour
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Labour
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Labour
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Labour
Lord Temple-Morris Labour
Baroness Thornton Labour
Lord Tomlinson Labour
Lord Tunnicliffe Labour
Baroness Vadera Labour
Baroness Wall of New Barnet Labour
Lord West of Spithead Labour
Baroness Whitaker Labour
Lord Williams of Elvel Labour
Baroness Young of Old Scone Non-affiliated
Lord Bassam of Brighton Labour
Lord Davies of Oldham Labour
A privilege amendment was made.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
10 Facts You Probably Didn't Know About Johnny Winter
He lived quite an amazing life, overcaming many challenges in order to sustain a long career.
Corbin Reiff
How Billy Idol Almost Lost His Leg in a Motorcycle Accident
We enjoy a certain amount of bad behavior from our rock stars, but within limits.
Jeff Giles
David Bowie Could Have His First Number One Album After Death
David Bowie has never had a number one album on the Billboard 200 chart, but that could happen now, a week after his death.
Why the First Led Zeppelin U.S. Show Almost Never Happened
They appeared first on a three-band bill that also featured Vanilla Fudge and Spirit.
Matt Wardlaw
When Motley Crue's Nikki Sixx Was Declared Dead
This band has had nine lives, and their bassist might have used up at least half of them.
Kyle Busch Wins 1st NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Championship At Miami
Kyle Busch won NASCAR's 2015 Sprint Cup Series championship by capturing the Ford EcoBoost 400 at Homestead-Miami Speedway on Sunday.
Jeff Gordon Wins Wreck-Marred NASCAR Chase Race at Martinsville
Jeff Gordon avoided a controversial late wreck and won the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Goody's Headache Relief Shots 500 at Martinsville Speedway in Tennessee on Sunday.
Sad Songs Make You Sadder
What makes you really love a song? Especially a sad one? It usually hits us, it resonates, we relate, and it fits our mood at the time. And maybe it makes us feel like we're not alone in going through all the stuff we're going through. Cool. Now the not-so-great news. Songs can strike a chord that's so deep they may actually have a negative impact on our long-term mental health. And it's not
Led Zeppelin Albums Ranked Worst to Best
Ultimate Classic Rock counts down every canonical Led Zeppelin album, from worst (relatively speaking, of course) to best.
Nick DeRiso
Joey Logano Wins Chase Eliminator at Talladega
Joey Logano withstood a chaotic finish to win his third straight race, capturing NASCAR's CampingWorld.com 500 at Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama on Sunday afternoon.
NASCAR Chase Race at Kansas
Joey Logano spun Matt Kenseth with less than 10 laps left and hung on to win his second straight NASCAR Chase race by capturing the Hollywood Casino 400 at Kansas Speedway on Sunday.
Joey Logano Wins NASCAR's Bank of America 500 in Charlotte
Joey Logano led 227 laps and won the Bank of America 500 at Charlotte Motor Speedway in North Carolina on Sunday.


text:
Representatives from the US Naval Academy Center for High Performance Computing and Research and the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies (UMIACS) conducted a ribbon- cutting to launch the academy's "Grace" supercomputer. Named in honor of computing pioneer Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, the Cray XC-30 will be used to support midshipmen and faculty research in a number of fields. Funded by the DoD High Performance Computing Modernization Program and the Office of Naval Research, Grace will bring supercomputing into the classroom at the Naval Academy.
The University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies is providing floor space and technical support to host the computer. University of Maryland students and faculty will also have access to the machine to support research. Dr. Gavin Taylor, Dr. Carl Albing, and Dr. Nate Chambers from USNA were instrumental in obtaining the machine for the Naval Academy, and Dr. Thomas Goldstein from the University of Maryland assisted with locating the space and support from UMIACS.
From left to right: University of Maryland student, Dr. Gavin Taylor (USNA) Sr. Amitabn Varshey (Director of UMIACS), CDR Michael Bilzor, PhD, (Chair of Computer Science, USNA) Dr. Carl Albing (USNA), Dr. Thomas Goldstein(UMIACS), Midn 1/C Lee


text:
Late last year, we looked at a situation that very much resembled a leveraged buyout opportunity in which ordinary investors could partake. Today, we look at an opportunity in another area that retail investors are usually blocked from: venture capital. But in keeping with the value mantra, there is one special characteristic of this investment that makes it appropriate for this site: the company trades at a large discount to its investments.
Capital Southwest (CSWC) is a "venture capital investment company whose objective is to achieve capital appreciation through long-term investments in businesses believed to have favorable growth potential." But while the company trades for just $370 million, it has net assets of $514 million, giving investors the opportunity to participate in the equity of the underlying companies at a rather large discount.
Of course, as with any investment, there are specific risks of which investors should be aware. Valuing companies with steady cash flows is hard enough (as proof, consider the wild stock market fluctuations from year to year of even the most stable of corporations), but valuing young, development stage companies is even harder. There is no public market for most of Capital Southwest's investments, and therefore it's hard to know the margin of error surrounding that $514 million number quoted above; it's entirely possible that there is no margin of safety, or conversely, that the margin of safety is much larger than we think!
This company's investing policy also appears a bit mixed, as it doesn't really stick to its "venture" mantra. It also looks for companies with positive cash flow, which is rare in the venture capital space (hence the need for direct investment). As a result, Capital Southwest also owns a number of public companies, including Heely's, which has been discussed on this site as a potential value play.
It's also possible that the company will trade for a discount to its investments eternally, or at least for a very long period of time. But shareholders should still benefit from the discount as long as net assets grow (which, of course, is far from guaranteed); if net assets grow 10% for example, then an investor who buys at a 50% discount sees a return of 20%. It should also be noted that Capital Southwest was trading without any discount as recently as mid-2008, which may help reassure those who fear the dreaded "eternal" discount.
To protect ordinary investors from themselves, securities regulations make it very difficult for regular investors to invest in venture capital funds. But through public company Capital Southwest, ordinary investors can indeed participate in venture capital, and at a large discount to the approximated fair value of Capital Southwest's net assets.
Disclosure: None
Hmmm...this one seems interesting. It's very nice to see that the CEO has about 8x his salary invested in the stock too.
If someone knows how much the investments are worth, I think he may be one of them.
I own this one. Bought it a couple of years ago at around $70. Well run company, very low profile, long term investors, management owns about 24 percent of the outstanding shares.


text:
Subscribe to the DBTA E-Edition email newsletter
Trend-Setting Products for 2020
All Past Issues
Subscribe to the online version of Database Trends and Applications magazine. DBTA will send occasional notices about new and/or updated DBTA.com content.
Trends and Applications
Empowered Databases, Empowered Managers—The Impact of Virtualization on Agility
Exploding data assets and the need for greater agility are helping to drive the move to virtualization. More than two-thirds of organizations in a recent Unisphere Research survey among members of the Independent Oracle Users Group indicate that the number of Oracle databases they manage is expanding. At the same time, many managers admit that their IT departments are sluggish when it comes to responding to new business requirements. For more than 50% of organizations, it takes their IT department 30 days or more to respond to new initiatives or deploy new solutions. For one-quarter of organizations, it takes 90 days or more.
Four Disruptive Forces—Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud—Reshape Data Environments
The rise of digital platforms is spurring new innovation and new thinking within the data management world to an unprecedented degree, and it is recasting the look, feel, and functionality of solutions and approaches to data applications. There are many business opportunities arising from digital platforms that call for proactive leadership or engagement by data managers. A prime example is the emergence of the Internet of Things, which SMAC makes possible.
Columns - Big Data Notes
Will Transactions Return to NoSQL?
The introduction of increased transactional capability into non-relational databases makes sense—in the same way that providing SQL layers on top of Hadoop and many other non-relational stores makes sense. But it does raise the possibility of convergence of relational and non-relational systems. After all, if I take a non-relational database and add SQL and ACID transactions, have I still got a non-relational database, or have I come full circle back to the relational model?
Columns - Database Elaborations
Beginner's Mind Versus Expert's Mind
Shunryu Suzuki, in his classic book, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, tells us that in the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few. Both a beginner's and an expert's perspective have value, but bias toward either an expert or a beginner approach seems to consume an organization far too often.
Columns - DBA Corner
What Can You Do to Avoid Database Locking Problems?
Lock contention issues can be frustrating problems to investigate and debug. Before blaming the database system (as is the usual response), there are a few questions to consider that can help identify the cause of the locking problems.
Columns - Quest IOUG Database & Technology Insights
IOUG Insight: To Cloud or Not to Cloud—That Is the Question
Cloud solutions are rapidly expanding, and consumers and businesses are being offered these solutions at almost every turn. This reality is bringing to light one of the major concerns about cloud: IT security/privacy. It seems we are hearing about breaches into server systems, leaks in social media networks, industrial espionage, and other security incidents almost on a daily basis. So the cloud can't be secure, right?
Columns - SQL Server Drill Down
Delayed Durability—The SQL Server 2014 Transaction Log Hack!
Delayed durability offers something that many SQL Server professionals have wanted for years—the ability to disable transaction logging. Why turn off the transaction log? You can accelerate performance in a lot of situations where you do NOT need transactional consistency.
Columns - Next-Gen Data Management
Is the Database Administration Profession Disappearing or Just Evolving?
With the new tools available that allow companies to monitor database resources, pinpoint the root cause of problems, speed up applications, and prevent crashes, some may wonder if companies will need DBAs at all in the future. However, the risk to DBAs and technology professionals as a whole is not that their jobs are going away, but that they may opt to not take the time to understand and use the tools and technologies that will allow them to be better professionals. This can place them at a disadvantage to their peers and curtail their ability to add value to the organization, therefore limiting their careers.
MV Community
Entrinsik Informer is Recognized for BI Capabilities
Entrinsik Informer has been recognized in a recent survey of BI products. Entrinsik Informer, an agile reporting and business intelligence application, provides access to real-time data from multiple sources, in-depth analytic capabilities, and intuitive data visualizations from one user-friendly web interface.
Kore Technologies Helps Rockland Community College Improve College Database
Kore Technologies' Kourier Integrator has helped improve Rockland Community College's speed and accuracy when it comes to its database performance. Kourier Integrator is Kore's flagship enterprise integration and data management suite with extract, transform, and load (ETL) and enterprise application integration capabilities (EAI).
Pick Cloud to Lease Servers for Short-Term Use
Pick Cloud is leasing servers on a short-term basis as part of their cloud suite offerings. According to Mark Pick, CEO and founder of Pick Cloud, Inc., "There is now a cost-effective alternative for MultiValue application providers and users to spending a lot of time and money to configure, purchase, and set up a server on-premise for short-term use."
Revelation Software Gets Ready for 2015 Users' Conference in Houston
Revelation Software has announced that the keynote speaker for the Revelation Software Users' Conference will be Dan Lier, a best-selling author, sales and leadership expert and internationally recognized motivational speaker. The conference for Revelation's customers, partners, end users, and resellers globally will take place Tuesday, March 24, through Friday, March 27, 2015, at the Omni Houston Hotel in Texas.
Rocket Software Launches Beta for Python on UniData
Rocket Software has launched its beta for the Python programming language on UniData.


All prayer requests submitted to The Christian Working Woman (TCWW) will be reviewed and edited before being posted. Those who submit requests remain solely responsible for the content of their posted prayer requests and agree to indemnify and hold harmless TCWW with respect to any claim based upon the transmission and posting of the prayer requests. Requests will be posted only with the first name of the person submitting them and will not include the name of any other person or any other type of information that can specifically identify another person. Children under the age of 13 are not permitted to post prayer requests on the TCWW Prayer Support page.


text:
Q: how to convert ascii to byte array format i want to convert the ascii code to byte array format:
Code :
byte[] byteArr = passenger_sign.getBytes();

Output :
[B@34c59da

i dont know how to convert it to byte array format,anyone have solution for this.

A: Refer this link
[https://examples.javacodegeeks.com/core-java/lang/string/convert-string-to-byte-array-ascii-encoding/]
public static byte[] stringToBytesASCII(String str) {
 byte[] b = new byte[str.length()];
 for (int i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {
  b[i] = (byte) str.charAt(i);
 }
 return b;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Made of heat treated chrome vanadium steel.
Ideal for fast and easy driving of tech screws,bolts & hex head screws.
1.★ 【Stunning 1080P Full HD Video・2.0 Megapixel】The product has a CMOS sensor of 2 megapixels and HD 1080P high resolution as well as distinctive video recording and wide angle shooting functions.
2.★ 【Enhanced Night Vision・Motion Detection】With a built-in IR-CUT automatic switchover filter, the monitoring picture is still clear at night. The wireless camera is equipped with dynamic monitoring function. The App will inform the user via an email in case of any moving object within the shooting scope.
3.★ 【Wifi Enhanced Version・IP66 Weatherproof】The wireless CCTV camera system contains a built-in wifi module and has steady wireless wave. Transmission distances: 100m for outdoor uses and 30m for indoor uses. With ingress protection as high as IP66, it can work in adverse rain or snow conditions.
【EXPANDABLE 8 CH WIRELESS SECURITY CAMERA SYSTEM,Portable Monitor】All-in-One 8 Channel 1080P NVR CCTV Camera System can Max support 8 cameras, which is more suitable for large dwelling-size house.You don't have to go nuts when you are finding a suitable monitor.4 Pcs IP66 Weatherproof Bullet Cameras,which built with excellent material of metal shell ,are durable enough to be installed indoor and outdoor.
【TRUE PLUG AND PLAY ,EASY INSTALLATION】With 2.4GHz wireless transmission,security camera wirelsss and NVR are paired before shipping ,so you don't need to run cables between Cameras and NVR.Wireless CCTV System will reduce damage to walls when you install it.Just Plug the Security Camera System into Power Outlets with Provided Power Supply adapters (4*12V/1A for each Wireless CCTV bullet Camera;1*12V/2A for NVR), and Connect NVR to PC/TV Monitor with VGA/HDMI Cable,then you can view viedo.
【FREE APP FOR EASIER REMOTE ACCESS】When you go for a long trip,you don't need to worry about your property security. Using CCTV System Wireless,you can remote view live video simultaneously at anytime, anywhere with wifi/4G on Smart Phone,Pad and PC. You can download Free APP "SMONET" or "IP PRO3" from Google Play/ APP Store,which is easy to been setup in seconds. If you want remote view Surveillance Camera System on PC or laptop,you can E-mail to smonetservice@hotmail.com to get software.


text:
ALLIE NGOC DAO, PharmD
Allie Ngoc Dao received her bachelor's in biology from the University of Virginia. After graduation, she attended the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, where she graduated with a Pharm.D. in 2001. She then pursued a pharmacy practice residency at the Medical College of Virginia Hospitals. Afterward, she successfully landed her first job as a clinical pharmacist at Memorial Hermann Memorial City Hospital in 2002, meanwhile moonlighting at various independent pharmacies throughout the Houston area. By 2007, she had the great privilege of joining a partnership in Southwest Pharmacy, in which she can closely serve our Vietnamese community. Currently, she is also working as a clinical staff pharmacist at Houston Methodist West Hospital. For the past 18 years, she has fully engaged in both hospital & independent pharmacy. Moreover, Allie is extremely passionate about her career & the future of pharmacy!
Copyright Vapha.net


Over the past 10 years, technology has changed the way we handle almost everything, including how we communicate. From the increasing prevalence of cell phones to the introduction of social networks, human connections and interactions have increased and evolved. The speed at which we can communicate and the number of ways we can communicate have increased and those changes have relevance in the workplace as well as in our personal lives, which is why workplace social platforms have captured the attention of human resource professionals. Rather than locking down the use of social media networks in the office, many companies are embracing their employees' eagerness to participate and are finding ways to leverage this enthusiasm to drive employee engagement and advocacy for the company.
Workplace social platforms offer the opportunity to build engagement by tapping into your employees' familiarity with social sharing and social games. Building engagement in this way can also increase motivation by making recognition more public via social sharing and injecting fun into required activities via social games. A study conducted by Badgeville, a provider of gamification and behavior management platforms, and Make Their Day, a motivation firm, showed that 83 percent of respondents felt recognition was "more fulfilling than gifts or rewards." Ninety percent said that a fun work environment was motivating. "The results of the Make Their Day study align to what we've seen across our customers deploying gamification solutions for workplace engagement, as well as numerous reports over the last few years on the changing face of what motivates employees today" said Ken Comee, CEO, Badgeville.
Workplace social platforms also play an integral role in building and cultivating employee advocates. Leveraging powerful tools like workplace social platforms is an important move for companies to make, as employee advocates are not always as vocal as you'd like them to be. Business advisor and writer Mike Bailey, in Social Media Today, observes, "Employee advocacy doesn't just happen—feedback from those who've led successful programs paints a daunting picture." Bailey offers quotes from several business people describing their experiences with employee advocacy. The gist is that change often needs to start and be reiterated from the top down. Social platforms, however, have the ability to push communications out laterally and give employees an opportunity to become advocates. In turn, your corporate values may be shared further and be pushed out to external communities because of your advocates.
In addition to this, new technologies have allowed you to take workplace social platforms mobile. According to Pew Research, as of May 2013 cell phone ownership in adults reached 91 percent. This number will continue to grow, so it is important that your social recognition program include a mobile strategy. Mobile technology not only gives your users the ability to participate on their devices, but it also makes program management easier because changes and updates can be made from almost anywhere and at any time.
To learn more about the impact of workplace social platforms and other technologies on businesses, follow the Marketing Innovators blog or register for our monthly newsletter.


UFX.com is a cutting-edge online Broker specialising in high performance trading for currencies, stocks, and commodities.
UFX.com is a cutting-edge online Broker specialising in high performance trading for currencies, stocks, and commodities. Our Affiliates enjoy maximum conversions as a result of the unique benefits we offer our traders, including Advanced Charts and trading tools, one-click trading services, and a unique personal training program.


text:
class ACLQueryMethodNamed < ApplicationController
  attr_accessor :current_user

  access_control :acl, :query_method => 'allow_ay' do
    allow :editor, :to => [:edit, :update, :destroy]
    allow :viewer, :to => [:index, :show]
    allow :owner,  :of => :foo, :to => :fooize
  end

  def acl?(*args)
    @foo = Foo.first

    allow_ay(*args)
  end
end


Takeaway: The NCRQ Diploma has many advantages, but the best choice depends on your specific goals.
As a person who has completed a NEBOSH, the old NVQ 4 (which no longer exists – yes, I'm that old), and is currently undertaking the final unit of NCRQ Diploma, I figure I might have some insight that could help safety professionals, HR departments looking to spend some money on up-skilling their staff, and directors looking for the best value.
I want to make it clear from the outset that I don't work for any training provider and I don't represent any of the brands mentioned above, either. This is purely my humble opinion, having undertaken the certifications that seem come up as the most popular answers.
I studied for the Diploma online, with a reputable training company, between 2011 and 2013. The Diploma will be accepted for Grad.IOSH.
I found the NEBOSH Diploma assignment piece to be okay. It was a nice piece to write that demonstrates at least some useful application of my new knowledge. But I did not feel it went far enough. I walked out with a 76% overall grade.
My NEBOSH exams were a total disaster! I think my first exam score (and I was confident I had achieved "distinction") came out at an abysmal 23%. I really did. I revised so long, so hard, and with all kinds of external resources, with the RRC as my go-to revision guide. It did not help me one bit because the revision answers were not structured the same way a NEBOSH examiner likes to see them.
Not to be deterred, I tried again. This time, I contacted my tutor and asked them to set me some further exam style questions. I felt a lot more confident in my re-sit, even though I must stress I gained no new, or increased, knowledge about the subject matter. I only learned how to write in the style expected of a NEBOSH examiner. This time, I failed again. Only by one mark – I scored 39!
The interesting thing about this exercise was that I was already in post and doing the job. Worrisome, right? But, to be fair, I was already in post because I already had a recognized qualification: the NVQ 4.
I started the NVQ 4 in 2009 when I was managing a small business and a kindly gentleman asked me, "Do you know about the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act that's coming out? You can go to prison if one of your employees dies because of your failings."
If that doesn't spur you to action, nothing will. So, I made it my business to find a suitable qualification to educate myself. And the NVQ was what I found.
The most important thing to know about this qualification is that it's not taught. That's right, no teaching. The NVQ is a practical assessment piece. You are supposed to be doing or working toward the performance criteria in this qualification. That can make it a poor choice for someone looking to gain entry to the management field without authority to change policies, procedures, communication protocols, and so on. This qualification is suitable for people already in this position. It is a great way to gain acknowledgement of the value you already add to the business and it may be a helpful piece to pick up some extras too.
A number of my friends who are Operations Directors or hold similar positions are having to do all kinds of extra work in their day jobs to demonstrate competence for their NVQ. This is not really what the qualification is designed for, however, so do be careful if this is you.
One major drawback to the NVQ 5 Diploma is that you cannot use it to pursue higher learning at the Masters level. Another drawback is that not many employers were happy to invite to interview based on a "lowly NVQ," even though you are more practically assessed and your competence has been established (NEBOSH does not offer anything close to this). The NEBOSH Diploma is definitely something to consider if you are looking to take your development to this level. You can apply for Grad.IOSH with NVQ 5.
Which now brings us to the NCRQ.
Remember when I said that I have no affiliation to any training company? Well, it's true, so I can tell you with integrity that after completing both Unit 1 and Unit 2 of the NCRQ, I think this is one of the best qualifications out there on the market.
The NCRQ provides learners with a textbook filled with case studies and examples, along with further support online to reinforce the information. The qualification is entirely assignment-based (no exams is a big plus for me). One great thing is that the assignments are based on real-life scenarios from all kinds of sectors. That's a great advantage because to get a "distinction" you need to do a lot of wider reading to appreciate some of the finer points of the sector being discussed. All the information is available for free using the greatest tool ever: Google!
NEBOSH has the advantage if you prefer to learn in a classroom environment, since NCRQ and NVQ do not offer this medium.
Despite all its perks, I wasn't a big fan of Unit 2: Civil Liability. Unlike Unit 1, which made absolute sense, I found it quite boring and some parts seemed to be written by a lawyer (learn more about Keeping Workers Safe and Reducing Employer Liability). But I have personally recommended NCRQ to several colleagues and new entrants, and, so far, they have all come back and thanked me, so that's got to be a good sign.
As a learner, I liked that I could study for the NCRQ at my own pace, using online resources and no exams. The really big deal, though, Level 6 gives me a qualification recognized to complete a Masters!
For new entrants to the industry, the Level 6 certificate offers opportunity at Tech.IOSH and the full diploma offers Grad.IOSH status.
So, with all that in mind, which one is right for you will depend on what you're looking for.
NEBOSH has been around for a while and it still carries weight with hiring managers who don't know there are alternatives.
NVQ is for people who are already in post and doing the job but wish to have it acknowledged formally. But, you cannot progress to a Masters on this qualification alone. You may also meet some resistance when submitting your CV, too.
NCRQ is for practical people who can learn at their own pace and have the discipline to set goals and targets to achieve for themselves. Based on articles I've been reading, it's also gaining some significant traction with employers.