Skip to main content

Sharing and comments

Share this page


  1. Comment by Rod Whiteley posted on

    I looked at the Carers page. It links to a Supporting carers page, which links back to the Carers page. Both pages seem to say much the same things, and there's no obvious way to comment on any of the things they say.

    The separate comments area is organized in a different way, so if I'm a carer and I want to comment on something I've just read it's incredibly complicated.

    I think the basic idea of presenting a white paper and draft bill in this way is probably a good one, but lack of time to implement it well on this occasion shows.

    • Replies to Rod Whiteley>

      Comment by Stephen Hale posted on

      Thanks for your comment Rod. We're actively inviting comments on the clauses of the draft Bill (with a commitment to do something with those comments). But we don't invite comments on everything we publish. But I see your point.

  2. Comment by Aaron Gow posted on

    As a way of making a document that previously would've just been a pdf I think it's a great first go.

    People seem to have the hang of replying in the right place, most pages are clear and not too text heavy.

    I'm not sure I like the black, grey and white look - for me it reminds me of old 'inky' newspapers. Just personal opinion though.

    Re the 'view notes on this clause' - maybe this could be a hover over box?

    Also, you say you've 'spent no money on this' - is there any analysis as to what the previous cost of producing draft bills for comment is? Do you show a cost saving - obviously there is people's time to consider.

    • Replies to Aaron Gow>

      Comment by Stephen Hale posted on

      Thanks Aaron. You might be interested to see: which was published yesterday and is an attempt to do the same thing, done a bit differently - I think it's very good. I don't know what the cost of other attempts to do this have been. Ideally, we would have a consistent way of doing this for all Bills, led by parliament or the Government Digital Service, and that's probably where we'll end up. In our case, we've just adapted things we already have, and we've done it in house, so there's no additional cost. But you're certainly right about people's time.

  3. Comment by Emily Davies posted on

    Is this the first time the Department of Health has tried this online commenting system for consulation on a Draft Bill, or the first time any government department has tried it?

  4. Comment by S Godfrey posted on

    A solution to problem of having to sell parental home to pay for care home fees:
    The property is'leased'out to local council for period of 3-10years dependant upon parents age in return for council paying care home fees.
    Council benefits by getting houses to rent out for set period
    Parent may not live as long as the 'lease' but property will still revert to the family
    Care home fees swallow up proceeds from property sale within a few years resulting in council having to pay for subsequent years
    Sorry this isn't specifically about the bill - but finding it hard to know where to post this and want the idea aired.

  5. Comment by Amy Smith posted on

    I think this looks great - it's clean, easy to navigate and keeps everything neatly on platform. A nerdy question - why are the schedules on the sitemap capitalised? (makes it look a little unbalanced)

    • Replies to Amy Smith>

      Comment by Stephen Hale posted on

      Thanks Amy. On capitalisation - we were very conscious that the way the bill text was formatted carried meaning, and we didn't want to unintentionally change the meaning by altering the presentation. But looking at it now, I think we could probably have done without the shouty headings without changing the meaning. I agree that they looks a bit odd.