Whilst this some of the requested information is held by the NHSBSA, we have exempted some of the figures under section 40(2) subsections 2 and 3(a) of the FOIA because it is personal data of applicants to the VDPS. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a - it is not fair to disclose individual’s personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b - these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the individual. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Guidance is that information is personal data if it ‘relates to’ an ‘identifiable individual’ regulated by the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) or the Data Protection Act 2018. The information relates to personal data of the VDPS claimants and is special category data in the form of health information. As a result, the claimants could be identified, when combined with other information that may be in the public domain or reasonably available. Online communities exist for those adversely affected by vaccines they have received. This further increases the likelihood that those may be identified by disclosure of this information. Section 40(2) is an absolute, prejudice-based exemption and therefore is exempt if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. To comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency data protection principle, we either need the consent of the data subject(s) or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet the legitimate interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm. The NHSBSA has considered this and does not have the consent of the data subjects to release this information and believes that it would not be possible to obtain consent that meets the threshold in Article 7 of the UK GDPR. The NHSBSA acknowledges that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information to provide the full picture of data held by the NHSBSA; however, we have concluded that disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm and therefore, section 40(2) is engaged. This is because there is a reasonable expectation that patient data processed by the NHSBSA remains confidential, especially special category data. There are no reasonable alternative measures that could meet the legitimate aim. As the information is highly confidential and sensitive, it outweighs the legitimate interest in the information. Section 41 FOIA This information is also exempt under section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence). This is because the requested information was provided to the NHSBSA in confidence by a third party - another individual, company, public authority or any other type of legal entity. In this instance, details have been provided by the claimants. For Section 41 to be engaged, the following criteria must be fulfilled:

In September 2024, the Irish Data Protection Commission fined Meta Ireland 91 million euros after passwords of social media users were stored in 'plaintext' on Meta's internal systems rather than with cryptographic protection or encryption. In May 2023, the EU fined Meta 1.2 billion euros for violating laws on digital privacy and putting the data of EU citizens at risk through Facebook's EU-U.S. data transfers. European privacy legislation is seen as being far stricter than American privacy law, and the sending of EU citizens’ data to the United States resulted in the record breaking penalty being issued to the tech giant. In January 2023, after it was discovered that Meta Platforms had improperly required that users of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp accept personalized adverts to use the platforms, the company was issued a 390 million euro fine by the European Commission. EU regulators claim that the social media giant broke the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by including the demand in its terms of service. In addition, Meta was fined 405 million euros by the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) in September 2022 for violating Instagram's children's privacy settings. In November 2022, the DPC fined Meta a further 265 million euros for failing to protect their users from data scraping. GDPR violations in 2022 Social media sites and companies are not the only types of online services upon which users' data can potentially be compromised. In 2022, the online service with the biggest fine for violating GDPR was e-commerce and digital powerhouse Amazon, which was issued a 746 million euro fine. Furthermore, in December 2021, Google was penalized 90 million euros for GDPR violations. What are the most common GDPR violations? Since GDPR went into effect in May 2018, fines have been imposed for a variety of reasons. As of June 2022, companies' non-compliance with general data processing principles accounted for the largest share of fines, resulting in over 845 million euros worth of penalties. Insufficient legal basis for data processing was the second most common violation, amounting to 447 million euros in fines.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following information: The number of individuals of all ages who were prescribed contraceptives in the financial years 2019-2020, 2021-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 in community settings (GP surgeries and pharmacies) broken down by contraceptive method. I would also like the proportion these represent of contraception users. For example, X proportion of those on contraception are using the Mirena coil. If possible, I would also appreciate if this were broken down by age of those prescriptions too. To clarify, I mean patients. I also mean both contraceptive drugs and appliances/devices Response A copy of the information is attached. Please read the following information to ensure correct understanding of the data. Fewer than five Please be aware that I have decided not to release the full details where the total number of individuals falls below five. This is because the individuals could be identified, when combined with other information that may be in the public domain or reasonably available. This information falls under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a - It is not fair to disclose individual’s personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b - These details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the individual. Please click the weblink to see the exemption in full: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) - NHS Prescription Services process prescriptions for Pharmacy Contractors, Appliance Contractors, Dispensing Doctors, and Personal Administration with information then used to make payments to pharmacists and appliance contractors in England for prescriptions dispensed in primary care settings (other arrangements are in place for making payments to Dispensing Doctors and Personal Administration). This involves processing over one billion prescription items and payments totalling over £9 billion each year. The information gathered from this process is then used to provide information on costs and trends in prescribing in England and Wales to over 25,000 registered NHS and Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) users. Data Source: ePACT2 - Data in ePACT2 is sourced from the NHSBSA Data Warehouse and is derived from products prescribed on prescriptions and dispensed in the Community. The data captured from prescription processing is used to calculate reimbursement and remuneration. It includes items prescribed in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Guernsey/Alderney, Jersey, and Isle of Man which have been dispensed in the community in England. English prescribing that has been dispensed in Wales, Scotland, Guernsey/Alderney, Jersey, and Isle of Man is also included. The data excludes: • Items not dispensed, disallowed and those returned to the contractor for further clarification. • Prescriptions prescribed and dispensed in prisons, hospitals, and private prescriptions. • Items prescribed but not presented for dispensing or not submitted to NHS Prescription Services by the dispenser. Dataset - The data is limited to presentations prescribed in BNF sections 0703 Contraceptives and BNF section 2104 Contraceptive Devices. Data is presented at BNF Sub Paragraph and BNF Presentation level. Time Period - Financial years 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24 (April 2023 - January 2024). Data is currently available up to and including January 2024. Organisation Data - The data is for prescribing in England regardless of where dispensed in the community. British National Formulary (BNF) Sub Paragraph and Presentation Code – The BNF Code is a 15-digit code in which the first seven digits are allocated according to the categories in the BNF, and the last eight digits represent the medicinal product, form, strength and the link to the generic equivalent product. NHS Prescription Services has created pseudo BNF chapters, which are not published, for items not included in BNF chapters 1 to 15. Most of such items are dressings and appliances which NHS Prescription Services has classified into four pseudo BNF chapters (20 to 23). Patient Identification - Where patient identifiable figures have been reported they are based on the information captured during the prescription processing activities. Please note, patient details cannot be captured from every prescription form and based on the criteria used for this analysis, patient information (NHS number) was only available for 98.28% of prescription items. The unique patient count figures are based on a distinct count of NHS number as captured from the prescription image. Patient ages are based on the age as captured from the prescription image and relates to the patient's age at the time of prescribing/dispensing. Please note it is possible that a single patient may be included in the results for more than one age band where a patient has received prescribing at different ages during a financial year. The figures for the number of identifiable patients should not be combined and reported at any other level than provided as this may result in the double counting of patients. For example, a single patient could appear in the results for multiple presentations or both financial years. Patient Age - Shows the age of the patient, if recorded. Data Quality for patient age - NHSBSA stores information on the age of the recipient of each prescription as it was read by computer from images of paper prescriptions or as attached to messages sent through the electronic prescription system. The NHSBSA does not validate, verify or manually check the resulting information as part of the routine prescription processing. There are some data quality issues with the ages of patients prescribed the products. The NHSBSA holds prescription images for 18 months. A sample of the data was compared to the images of the paper prescription forms from which the data was generated where these images are still available. These checks revealed issues in the reliability of age data, in particular the quality of the stored age data was poor for patients recorded as aged two years and under. When considering the accuracy of age data, it is expected that a small number of prescriptions may be allocated against any given patient age incorrectly. Application of Disclosure Control to information services (prescriptions) products- ePACT 2 data is not published statistics - it is available to authorised NHS users who are subject to Caldicott Guardian approval. We have no plans to apply disclosure control to data released to ePACT 2 users. These users are under an obligation to protect the anonymity of any patients when reusing this data or releasing derived information publicly. All requests that fall under the FOI process are subject to the NHSBSA Anonymisation and Pseudonymisation Standard. The application of the techniques described in the standard is judged on a case-by-case basis (by NHSBSA Information Governance) in respect of what techniques should be applied. The ICO typically rules on a case-by-case basis too so each case or challenge or appeal is judged on its own merits. FOI rules apply to data that we hold as part of our normal course of business.

The HSE Books Customer Database, held by HSE’s appointed storage and Distribution services provider holds the following information: There are 19,228 customer records (256 Active and 18,972 closed) documenting orders placed from 1998 to date (31 July 2013). The orders relate to requests for printed copies of HSE’s guidance portfolio. These records include data on: Customer Address details;Standard Industry Classification code (SIC) where applicable; Type of business; Number of Employees; Order history; Payment history; Payment type; Credit limit; This information is provided to HSE for management information purposes. Sensitive information in relation to payments or bank account details is not shared with HSE and is dealt with under the appropriate financial controls operated by our service provider and the Data Protection Act.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner. The General Teaching Council for England (GTCE), which closed at the end of March 2012, was the professional body for teachers in England. The GTCE provided teacher registration and awarded qualified teacher status (QTS), gave trainee teachers provisional registration, maintained professional standards and gave advice to government. The GTCE also regulated the teaching profession in England in the public interest, including investigating allegations of serious professional incompetence and unacceptable professional conduct reported to the organisation. From April 2012, the Department for Education took over some of the functions of the GTCE. Further information may be found on the GTCE website. The Registered Teachers in England data comprise an anonymised selection of fields from the GTCE's Register of Teachers, the database created to service the work of the organisation from 2000 to 2012. The database held all relevant details of teachers working in the field in England, their qualifications, places of work and any disciplinary sanctions relevant to their fitness to practice in English schools. The UK Data Archive holds data from a survey series conducted by the GTCE, the Surveys of Teachers, 2004-2010, under SN 6890. Main Topics: The dataset consists of six data fields:registration category (provisional trainee or instructor, or Qualified Teacher)gender of teacher (male or female)age of teacher (five-year age bands))school Local Authority area)school type (using 'Edubase' database categories); school category and school phase)Calendar year in which Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) was awarded (for full registrants only)The data have been anonymised to comply with the Data Protection Act 1988. No sampling (total universe)

Success.ai's LinkedIn Company Data provides an exhaustive dataset of over 70 million business profiles from LinkedIn, offering an unparalleled depth of firmographic data and contact details for companies across the globe. This dataset is meticulously curated to support a wide range of business functions, from market analysis and competitor research to targeted B2B marketing and sales outreach. With verified profiles for a vast array of businesses, from startups to multinational corporations, our data ensures that your engagements are both strategic and effective.

Why Choose Success.ai’s LinkedIn Company Data?

Extensive Global Coverage: Gain access to detailed company profiles from over 70 million businesses worldwide, covering various industries, sizes, and markets. Rich Firmographic Details: Each profile is enriched with comprehensive firmographic data including company size, industry classification, geographic location, and historical firmographic changes. Direct Decision-Maker Access: Secure direct contact details for key decision-makers within these companies, enhancing your networking and outreach strategies. Data Features:

Verified Company Profiles: Leverage profiles that are verified and regularly updated to ensure the highest level of accuracy and relevance. Decision-Maker Contacts: Obtain emails and phone numbers of C-level executives and other pivotal roles within companies to facilitate direct communication. Geographic and Demographic Segmentation: Tailor your data use with advanced filtering options by location, industry, company size, and more, allowing for highly targeted strategies. Flexible Delivery and Integration:

API Access: Seamlessly integrate our LinkedIn Company Data into your existing CRM or marketing automation tools via API, ensuring real-time data synchronization and accessibility. Customizable Data Solutions: Choose from a range of delivery formats including API or static file downloads, depending on your operational needs and preferences. Competitive Pricing with Best Price Guarantee: Success.ai is committed to offering the best value in the market. Our pricing is designed to be competitive, providing you with access to premium data at the most affordable rates, guaranteed.

Ideal Use Cases:

B2B Marketing and Sales: Enhance your B2B marketing campaigns and sales prospecting efforts with direct access to key company contacts and rich firmographic insights. Market Research: Conduct in-depth market research and competitor analysis using detailed company data to inform strategic decisions. Investment and M&A Activities: Identify potential investment opportunities or merger and acquisition targets through detailed insights into company operations and growth. Quality Assurance and Compliance:

Rigorous Data Verification: Our data goes through strict verification processes to ensure accuracy and compliance with global data protection laws such as GDPR and CCPA. Continuous Data Updates: Our datasets are updated regularly to reflect the latest available information, keeping your data relevant and actionable. Dedicated Support and Customization:

Expert Support Team: Our team is available to assist with any specific data requirements or questions you may have, ensuring you maximize the utility of your data. Tailored Data Packages: We provide tailored data packages to meet your specific business needs, allowing for a more personalized data experience. Start Transforming Your Business Strategies Today: With Success.ai’s LinkedIn Company Data, you have the information needed to drive successful business outcomes. Whether you’re aiming to expand your market reach, enhance your B2B engagements, or conduct comprehensive market research, our reliable and extensive dataset is your gateway to achieving these goals.

Contact Success.ai to learn more about our LinkedIn Company Data and how it can revolutionize your business approach.

Certain types of contaminated land (as described in Regulation 2 of the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2006 are required to be designated as special sites. The effect of this is that the Environment Agency becomes the enforcing authority (rather than the Local Authority) and assumes responsibility for requiring remediation to be carried out under section 78E of Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Part 2A). This dataset is a list of all sites which have been designated as special sites by Local Authorities under section 78C of Part 2A up to 31 March 2019. Some of these sites are no longer special sites as the designation has been terminated. Details include site name, address, date of designation, special site status/category, site area, number of designations and date of any terminations.

‘Please provide a breakdown of the numbers of living EIBSS beneficiaries, who fall into the following categories, by County: HIV Co-infected (stage 1 and HIV) Co-infected (SCM and HIV) Co-infected (stage 2 and HIV) You do not need to breakdown each category, it would be one number per county, for example: Avon 5, Bedford 4, Bristol 0, etc’ Response A copy of the information is attached. Fewer Than 5 Please be aware that I have decided not to release the beneficiary details where the total number of beneficiaries falls below 5. This is because the beneficiaries could be identified, when combined with other information that may be in the public domain or reasonably available. This information falls under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3A (a) of the Freedom of Information Act. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a) it is not fair to disclose a beneficiary’s personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b) these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the patients. Please click the below web link to see the exemption in full. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Breach of Patient confidentiality Please note that the identification of beneficiaries is also a breach of the common law duty of confidence. A beneficiary who has been identified could make a claim against the NHSBSA for the disclosure of the confidential information. The information requested is therefore being withheld as it falls under the exemption in section 41(1) ‘Information provided in confidence’ of the Freedom of Information Act. Please click the below web link to see the exemption in full. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/41

This survey reports a range of experiences from 641 online sex workers selling sexual services via digital technologies during 2016/2017. The survey covers a range of topics including experiences at work, job satisfaction, types of online work, crimes experienced in the working context, relationships with the police and demographics of individuals doing online sex work. The BtG study found that the internet was of significant importance to sex workers indifferent aspects of their work, with 65.3% (n=419) agreeing or strongly agreeing that they would not do sex work if it was not for the internet. This related particularly to those working exclusively in webcam/phone sex work, where 90.5% (n=67) tended to or strongly agreed with this statement, but also to more than two-thirds (67.5%; n=131) of independent sex workers/escorts who did not work in any other sex industry sector. The responses to the survey of sex workers showed the internet played a large part in improving working practices. As we are aware from our prior research that many sex workers use more than one online platform and/or networking site, we asked in our promotional material that people complete the survey only once. We also asked when they arrived at the survey: where they accessed the link from on this occasion; which other online platforms they used; and whether they thought they had already completed the survey. This enabled us to reduce the number of potential duplicate entries, but also to obtain some idea of the overlap between different advertising and networking sites. Note: as the software we used does not collect IP addresses or any other identifying data, we were not able as in some surveys to recognise duplicate entries through this means. The survey was designed using Bristol Online Surveys (BOS), a UK-based online survey tool aimed at academic, educational and public sector communities. BOS is compliant with all UK data protection laws. As some of the websites promoting the survey are not UK-based and have a wider reach than the UK, we specified in our invitation to participate that the survey was for sex workers living in and/or working in the UK. In order to verify whether respondents not based in the UK worked in the UK, we also asked about geographical place of work as well as domicile. Despite specifying the target group for the survey, the online questionnaire was completed by a small number of sex workers who neither lived in nor worked in the UK and these were removed from the data prior to analysis. The survey commenced on 7th November 2016. It was initially advertised on six websites, including a major advertising site for escorts and webcammers with more than 25,000 profiles for female, male and transgender escorts, as well as being promoted through Twitter, facebook and emails to a small number of contacts. By the following week, it had been advertised on nine sites, including the project’s own website, with continuing promotion also on social media. At this stage the invitation to take part in the survey had not appeared on any major sites used by male sex workers and reminders were sent out to the two sites which had agreed to promote the research. By the end of 2016, the survey had been promoted on 15 advertising websites, Beyond the Gaze’s own website, on social media (Twitter and facebook), through sex work projects’ contacts and by snowballing methods. The survey closed on 23rd January 2017, with 652 completed responses and 6 partial responses, which were removed prior to analysis. A further 11 respondents neither lived nor worked in the UK and these were also removed from the dataset, leaving a final total of 641 respondents living and/or working in the UK.

This publication provides findings from the Safeguarding Adults Collection (SAC) for the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. Safeguarding Adults is a statutory duty for Councils with Adult Social Services Responsibilities in England under the Care Act 2014, in order to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse or neglect. The data is collected directly from these councils, also known as local authorities in this publication. The aim of this publication is to inform users about aspects of safeguarding activity at national, regional and local level. This page presents the key facts and data tables. Further chapters give more detailed information about data quality, how the data should be used, how the data was collected and collated (Introduction and Key Points chapter) and background about safeguarding (Supporting Information chapter). The Safeguarding Adults dashboard, which is an interactive business intelligence tool published alongside the data tables, presents further insight of the data including breakdowns by local authority. The England-level statistics for 2022-23 have been estimated as one local authority was not able to submit data.

This publication summarises information collected about uses of The Mental Health Act (1983) ('The Act'), as amended by The Mental Health Act 2007 ('The 2007 Act') and by other legislation, during 2014/15. Under The Act, people with a mental disorder may formally be detained in hospital in the interests of their own health or safety, or can be treated in the community but subject to recall to hospital when necessary for assessment and/or treatment under a Community Treatment Order (sometimes referred to as 'Supervised Community Treatment' or 'SCT'). The figures presented in this publication are the official statistics on uses of The Act in health services and will be of interest to clinicians, service managers and those with a responsibility for monitoring, administrating or application of The Act. It will also be of interest to academics and third sector organisations and especially to people who have experience of The Act either as a user of mental health services themselves or as a friend, carer or relative. Data were collected via the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) online Omnibus KP90 collection from organisations in England that are registered to provide Mental Health Services and make use of the Mental Health Act 1983 legislation, as amended. These include high security psychiatric hospitals as well as other NHS service providers and independent hospitals. All figures in this publication are at England level and are produced from the KP90 collection unless otherwise stated. We have made some changes to the presentation of this information to provide a consistent approach in terms of time series and types of provider across the key measures. The release is accompanied by reference data tables and a machine readable file including key measures at provider level. The publication also makes reference to relevant figures from other data sources, including equalities information from the Mental Health and Learning Disabilities Dataset (MHLDDS) and Data on the Use of section 136 Mental Health Act 1983 collected and published by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC). The Mental Health Bulletin 2014-15 is published on the same day this report. Whilst this report remains the official source of figures for the year, the Mental Health Bulletin publication presents several complementary measures, broken by age, gender, ethnic group and CCG - detail that is not available from the collection that this report is based upon.