Common use of Fairness and Transparency Clause in Contracts

Fairness and Transparency. 3.1 It is a basic requirement of data protection law that individuals should be told (or easily be able to find out) who is holding information relating to them, what that organisation will do with that information, and who they will pass it on to. In terms of this Protocol, both Parties are “data controllers” of the personal information which they hold, including information which they have received from each other. For joint/integrated team settings, such as those within the Community Health and Care Partnerships, both Parties are jointly data controllers of information held in the joint team or integrated CHCP. This position should be made clear to any service user who approaches either Party and whose information may be shared under this Protocol. 3.2 The position regarding the identity of the data controller and the arrangements for sharing information between the Parties will be publicised by both Parties in a range of ways: through leaflets, poster, wording added to forms, and on the websites of the Parties. The minimum content of such a fair processing notice is described in Appendix 2. The Parties will, through ongoing contact with service users and engagement with them, continue to raise awareness of the content of the fair processing notice. 3.3 The content described in Appendix 2 is regarded as the minimum required to comply with the general legal obligation to provide a fair processing notice. It is recognised that some service users and others will be interested in receiving much more information than this basic minimum. The Parties agree to respect such wishes by developing more detailed supplemental fair processing information to be provided to interested persons on request and published on their respective websites. 3.4 The Parties further recognise that even such a layered approach to the fair processing notice requirements may not satisfy everyone and that there will still be some people with unanswered questions. Both Parties have in place existing (separate) mechanisms for such inquiries from members of the public and any such request will be dealt with through these existing procedures (and see also section 8 below) 3.5 As described in section 2 above, most information will be exchanged on the basis of the express consent of the individual concerned. Such consent requires to be informed consent, and so will only be valid if the individual has been given an appropriate fair processing notice prior to consenting to what is described. However, as described in paragraphs 2.7, 2.9 and 2.10 there are circumstances where consent is not required. The Parties will, so far as possible, continue to provide appropriate fair processing information to the affected individuals even when their consent is not required (and not asked for) prior to the information being released. However, in some cases this is not appropriate, for example where telling someone about the proposed release of information might actually endanger a child or vulnerable adult. This will only happen in the circumstances described in paragraphs 2.9.5, 2.9.6 or 2.9.7 and even then only where the relevant professionals involved have formed a view that notifying the individual would have undesirable consequences for themselves or someone else. 3.6 The more detailed supplemental fair processing information described in paragraph 3.3 will, in particular, advise people as to when information will be shared without their express consent, and will also advise as to the sorts of activity where the Parties would release information without revealing the fact that they have done so to the individuals concerned.

Fairness and Transparency. 3.1 It is a basic requirement of data protection law that individuals should be told (or easily be able to find out) who is holding information relating to them, what that organisation will do with that information, and who they will pass it on to. In terms of this Protocol, both Parties are “data controllers” of the personal information which they hold, including information which they have received from each other. For joint/integrated team settings, such as those within the Community Health and Care Partnerships, both Parties are jointly data controllers of information held in the joint team or integrated CHCP. This position should be made clear to any service user who approaches either Party and whose information may be shared under this Protocol. 3.2 The position regarding the identity of the data controller and the arrangements for sharing information between the Parties will be publicised by both Parties in a range of ways: through leaflets, poster, wording added to forms, and on the websites of the Parties. The minimum content of such a fair processing privacy notice is described in Appendix 2. The Parties will, through ongoing contact with service users and engagement with them, continue to raise awareness of the content of the fair processing privacy notice. 3.3 The content described in Appendix 2 is regarded as the minimum required to comply with the general legal obligation to provide a fair processing privacy notice. It is recognised that some service users and others will be interested in receiving much more information than this basic minimum. The Parties agree to respect such wishes by developing more detailed supplemental fair processing information to be provided to interested persons on request and published on their respective websites. 3.4 The Parties further recognise that even such a layered approach to the fair processing privacy notice requirements may not satisfy everyone and that there will still be some people with unanswered questions. Both Parties have in place existing (separate) mechanisms for such inquiries from members of the public and any such request will be dealt with through these existing procedures (and see also section 8 below) 3.5 As described in section 2 above, most information will be exchanged on the basis of the express consent of the individual concerned. Such consent requires to be informed consent, and so will only be valid if the individual has been given an appropriate fair processing privacy notice prior to consenting to what is described. However, as described in paragraphs 2.7, 2.9 and 2.10 there are circumstances where consent is not required. The Parties will, so far as possible, continue to provide appropriate fair processing information to the affected individuals even when their consent is not required (and not asked for) prior to the information being released. However, in some cases this is not appropriate, for example where telling someone about the proposed release of information might actually endanger a child or vulnerable adult. This will only happen in the circumstances described in paragraphs 2.9.5, 2.9.6 or 2.9.7 and even then only where the relevant professionals involved have formed a view that notifying the individual would have undesirable consequences for themselves or someone else. 3.6 The more detailed supplemental fair processing information described in paragraph 3.3 will, in particular, advise people as to when information will be shared without their express consent, and will also advise as to the sorts of activity where the Parties would release information without revealing the fact that they have done so to the individuals concerned.

Fairness and Transparency. 3.1 It is a basic requirement of data protection The law that individuals should says Personal information shall be told (or easily be able to find out) who is holding information relating to them, what that organisation will do with that information, and who they will pass it on to. In terms of this Protocol, both Parties are “data controllers” of the personal information which they hold, including information which they have received from each other. For joint/integrated team settings, such as those within the Community Health and Care Partnerships, both Parties are jointly data controllers of information held in the joint team or integrated CHCP. This position should be made clear to any service user who approaches either Party and whose information may be shared under this Protocol. 3.2 The position regarding the identity of the data controller and the arrangements for sharing information between the Parties will be publicised by both Parties in a range of ways: through leaflets, poster, wording added to forms, and on the websites of the Partiesprocessed fairly. The minimum content of such a processing won't be fair processing notice unless the person has, is described in Appendix 2. The Parties willprovided with, through ongoing contact with service users and engagement with them, continue to raise awareness of or has readily available: • information about your identity • information about the content of purpose the fair processing notice. 3.3 The content described in Appendix 2 is regarded as the minimum required to comply with the general legal obligation to provide a fair processing notice. It is recognised that some service users and others will be interested in receiving much more information than this basic minimum. The Parties agree to respect such wishes by developing more detailed supplemental fair processing information to be provided to interested persons on request and published on their respective websites. 3.4 The Parties further recognise that even such a layered approach to the fair processing notice requirements may not satisfy everyone and that there will still be some people with unanswered questions. Both Parties have in place existing (separate) mechanisms for such inquiries from members of the public and any such request will be dealt with through these existing procedures (and see also section 8 below) 3.5 As described in section 2 above, most information will be exchanged on processed for, and • any other information necessary to enable the basis of the express consent of the individual concerned. Such consent requires processing to be informed consentfair. What the MASH does 1. Fair processing notices, and so will only be valid if or 'privacy policies' as they are sometimes known, are intended to inform the individual has been given an appropriate fair processing notice prior to consenting to what is described. However, as described in paragraphs 2.7, 2.9 and 2.10 there are circumstances where consent is not required. The Parties will, so far as possible, continue to provide appropriate fair processing information to the affected individuals even when their consent is not required (and not asked for) prior to people the information being releasedis about how it will be shared and what it will be used for. However, in some cases this is not appropriate, for example where telling someone about the proposed release of information might actually endanger Each organisation should have a child or vulnerable adult. This will only happen in the circumstances described in paragraphs 2.9.5, 2.9.6 or 2.9.7 and even then only where the relevant professionals involved have formed a view Fair Processing Notice that notifying the individual would have undesirable consequences for themselves or someone else. 3.6 The more detailed supplemental fair processing information described in paragraph 3.3 will, in particular, advise people as to when informs individuals how their information will be shared without their express consentwithin the MASH. A full fair processing notice will be available on Bracknell Forest Council’s website specifically within the MASH information page. 2. Each organisation’s Fair Processing Notice will be freely available and genuinely informative of how information will be shared. They will be updated where necessary. 3. Each organisation will have a system in place for dealing with requests for information and enquiries about the way the data is held by them, including in the MASH. 4. The starting point in relation to sharing information is that practitioners will be open and honest with families and individuals from the outset about why, what, how and with whom information will or could be shared. 5. It may be necessary and desirable to deviate from the normal approach of seeking consent from a family in cases where practitioners have reasonable grounds for believing that asking for consent would be unsafe or inappropriate. For example if there is an emergency situation or if seeking consent could create or increase a risk of harm. 6. There must be a proportionate reason for not seeking consent and the person making this decision must try to weigh up the important legal duty to seek consent and the damage that might be caused by the proposed information sharing on the one hand and balance that against whether any, and if so what type and amount of harm might be caused (or not prevented) by seeking consent. 7. There is no absolute requirement for agencies in the MASH to obtain consent before sharing information nor is there a blanket policy of never doing so. There is an obligation to consider on all occasions and on a case by case basis whether information will also advise as be shared with or without consent. This determination by a practitioner should always be reasonable, necessary and proportionate. It should always be recorded together with the rationale for the decision. 8. BHFT will have a separate ISA with acute health and with the CCG (who will sign on behalf of primary care) to hold and proportionately share the sorts of activity where information in the Parties would release information without revealing the fact that they have done so to the individuals concernedMASH.