Report comment

Watch this space. I would place a big wager on this being a device to (1)acknowledge that there is a glaringly obvious and potentially deal breaking conflict of interest in the two roles of future Monitor, yet at the same time (2) David Bennett and his senior team will do everything in their power to retain internal control over both roles, consolidated under Bennett's chairmanship.

The two roles need to be separated completely. Two chairs, two boards. You can't set the exam questions for a whole marketplace ( including the IS) yet have a vested and conflicting interest in ensuring that a subset of that market passes the exam.

Allow the economic regulation role to be chaired by Bennett and his policy team but accept that provider development needs to be better integrated with the NHS at large. The present confusion is deeply unhelpful. And why is there still no effective mechanism for the deauthorisation of not only failing but already failed FTs? There are a number of FTs that are absolutely no longer going concerns and are only being saved by clandestine multi million pound 'bungs' arranged by Monitor. Whatever happened to the requirement to be 'effective, economic and efficient'?

Let the NTDA take on the development and compliance role.