DO-23 Correspondence relating to IPC Cell meetings 22-23 Dec 2020 and PHE's Evidenced Proposal
Dear Department of Health and Social Care,
I refer to this email thread:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
Please would you provide copies of emails and related documents (including attachments) relating to the email thread 22 December 2020 16:47 sent from DHSC to NHS England and PHE. This should include correspondence to and from the Secretary of State's office which is referred to in this email chain (22 Dec, 15:39).
Please also provide notes taken of the “check-in” referred to in this email (presumably a phone, zoom or similar communication between an IPC representative of NHS-E and DHSC) together with any other emails concerning the PHE recommendation to extend the use of FFP3 respirators in healthcare settings.
Please also provide copies of emails received from PHE forwarding their “Evidenced proposal” to you, known as INQ000408394
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
together with any further correspondence relating to matters raised in this report (including emails with the Secretary of State or his office and emails with NHS-E and PHE). I believe this will have been sent to you from PHE on 23 Dec 2020 or shortly after.
In order to limit the scope of this request to within reasonable bounds, the date-range for the required documents is restricted to the period between 22 Dec 2020 and 5 January 2021.
Yours faithfully,
David Osborn
This is an acknowledgement - please do not reply to this email.
Thank you for contacting the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
Your correspondence is being handled by the appropriate team.
If you have made an FOI request, DHSC is required under section 10(1) of
the FOIA to provide you with a response within 20 working days. If DHSC is
unable to do this, we will contact you nearer the time.
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.
Dear Mr Osborn,
I apologise for the delay in you receiving a response to your recent FOI
request (our ref:FOI-1557424).
The Department of Health and Social Care is still considering your request
and we will respond as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care
Dear Department of Health and Social Care,
Thank you for the update.
However I am mindful that DHSC's delayed responses have, in the past, taken up to 27 months.
The Act prescribes a period of 20 working days for a public authority to respond, which has now passed.
I am happy to wait a further 10 working days for the requested information before referring to ICO, which I belive is a reasonable extension.
Yours faithfully,
David Osborn
Dear Mr Osborn,
Please find attached the Department of Health and Social Care's response
to your FOI request (our ref: FOI-1557424).
Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care
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 'DO-23 Correspondence relating to IPC Cell meetings 22-23 Dec 2020 and PHE's Evidenced Proposal'.
I am dissatisfied with your response on the following grounds that
(1) You have not disclosed all the information you hold which I requested; and
(2) You have massively over-redacted information
Taking the documents you have supplied in turn, using the numbers prefixing your filenames:
1) email chain heavily redacted. First item shown = email P Tatton, 31/12/20 15:59
1a) You have redacted, in their entirety, 15 emails which should not have been redacted. Please supply this whole thread unredacted. If any fall outside my specified time-frame then please unredact the date/time stamp.
Based on the “out of scope” message you have applied, you seem to think that these are out of scope of my request. They are not. I carefully linked my request to a specific email dated 22/12/20 16:47 which was sent from DHSC to NHS England and PHE. I shall refer to this as the “reference email” below.
I asked for all emails and related documents relating to this email. Every single email in the document provided is a “document relating to that email” and should not therefore have been redacted.
The messages in document (5) “Not in Scope – not from DHSC” demonstrates your misunderstanding. You seem to have misinterpreted my FoI to only require emails where DHSC was the sender. The fact that I specifically asked for “correspondence TO AND FROM the Secretary of State’s office” should have made it clear to you that I was requesting all correspondence (inbound and outbound).
1b) I understand that permitted redaction protocols only relate to the less senior members of staff. In the email 24/12/20 14:29 you have redacted the name of the “Head of the PPE Engagement Team” which seems too senior for such redaction. Please check your redaction protocols.
1c) In the email 23/12/20 09:41 there is mention of “comments from Jonathan Marron below”, yet you have redacted both the emails below (including, presumably, the ones to and from Mr Marron. This shows that, even if you misinterpreted my request to include only emails sent from a person in DHSC (and he was a Director General in DHSC), you have redacted emails you shouldn’t have. Your comment in (5) indicates that you have deemed it “out of scope” as it was internal DHSC to DHSC emails. As explained in 1(a) above, all emails that related to the “reference email” are in scope. Please provide unredacted.
3) email 31/12/20 13:26:39
The position “Director – PPE Demand” is clearly a very senior post. Please check your redaction protocol has been correctly applied.
4) emails: Jenny Harries 24/12/20 09:40
The email from AF to JH clearly attaches (or copies below) some document giving the HSE’s perspective. That falls within the scope of my FoI request as a “related document”. Please provide the document(s) which give the HSE’s perspective.
5) email chain with the first visible email 24/12/2020 10:22
As with (1) above, massively over-redacted. You have redacted 6 emails which should not have been redacted. Please supply these unredacted.
I note from the page numbers at the bottom of the pages that pages 1 to 6, 8 and 9, together with 15 onwards are all missing. It is clear from the subject line that these are all “related documents”. Please supply all emails unredacted which contain the text “Urgent: Advice on FFP3 masks” in the subject line as these are all in-scope.
6) email 23/12/20 12:23
You have redacted the organisation to which the sender belongs. You should not redact to the right of the “@”.
Other matters to be included in your Internal Review, based on your covering letter dated 30 Jan 2025.
In the 4 elements of my request which you have reproduced in bold/italic type:
i) You omitted my following sentence “This should include correspondence to and from the Secretary of State’s office which is referred to in this email chain (22 Dec, 15:39)”. Furthermore, you did not provide that correspondence. I remind you of the key statement “We’ve received an urgent request from SoS’ office on FFP3s.” Please provide all such correspondence relating to these threads of emails since it is obvious to anyone that they do exist.
ii) Notes of “check in” : I take your word that no notes were made.
iii) other emails relating to PHE recommendation : I have to take your word for this
iv) correspondence relating to PHE’s “Evidenced Proposal” INQ000408394
I apologise for any confusion which may have been caused by a typo in my reference to the INQ number which should have been INQ000408934 (not …394). However, since I actually provided you with a link to the report in question I believe that you should have recognised the document to which I referred and been able to identify related correspondence.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
I therefore cannot accept that the typo on my part provided sufficient reason for you to state that you do not hold this information. Of course it goes without saying that the original document would not have had this INQ number since this was assigned some years later.
From other sources, I have some evidence that you do, indeed, hold such information (i.e. correspondence relating to the PHE report). However certain legally-binding confidentiality constraints prevent me from disclosing details to you. I still require copies of emails from PHE forwarding their report and associated correspondence please. As part of your internal review, please locate and provide this information.
Thanking you in advance.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
Yours faithfully,
David Osborn
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now