Communications mentioning Evusheld between Professor James Palmer and Charlotte Taylor

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Department of Health and Social Care should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

For the period 1 July 2022 to 6 September please provide:
All papers, emails (whether a primary preparer, recipient or cc’d) or other electronic communications between Professor James Palmer and Charlotte Taylor of the Antivirals and Therapeutics Taskforce in which Evusheld (i.e. the combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab, AZD7742 or any other name that is used by the DHSC for this) is mentioned.

Yours faithfully,

Louise Bicknell

Louise Bicknell left an annotation ()

DHSC replied to a similar request saying they do not hold this information but provide no details of who does. I ahve followed up with FOI to NHS England

Department of Health and Social Care

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Bicknell,

Please find attached the Department of Health and Social Care's response
to your recent FOI request (our ref: FOI-1421238).

Yours sincerely, 

Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care

show quoted sections

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Health and Social Care's handling of my FOI request 'Communications mentioning Evusheld between Professor James Palmer and Charlotte Taylor'.

Thank you for your reply of 4 November. I am glad to hear that the DHSC does hold the information relevant to my request.

I have review the Information Commissioner’s site and consider that your response falls below the standard required. As a result I am writing to request an internal review of your response.

You have not provided me with any evidence based break down/estimate of why reviewing all papers, emails or other electronic communications between Professor James Palmer and Charlotte Taylor of the Antivirals and Therpeutics Taskforce in which Evusheld (i.e. the combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab, AZD7742 or any other name that is used by the DHSC for this) will exceed 24 working hours.

From my direct experience in the compliance department of an investment bank, searching electronic communications across all mediums is an easy, swift task. The ability to do this quickly and accurately is viewed by the regulator as essential to a firms activities. Indeed it is why you have rules that staff and ministers must only use official communication accounts for the purposes of work. The records when identified can then be itemised, sized and reviewed - again not a task from my experience that takes an inordinate length of time.

I have time limited my request to between 1 July 2022 and 6 September 2022 to assist you with this request. Are there really so many communications on Evusheld during this period?

I look forward to hearing the outcome of the internal review

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Yours faithfully,

Louise Bicknell

Department of Health and Social Care

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Bicknell.
 
Please find attached the internal review outcome letter into the handling
of FOI-1421238.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Freedom of Information Team
This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Any views expressed in this
message are not necessarily those of the Department of Health and Social
Care. Please note: Incoming and outgoing email messages are routinely
monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic
communications.

Louise Bicknell left an annotation ()

The internal review was denied, but suggested revised question. I am following this up, but will leave this open for the ICO to consider if need be