Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, copies of any minutes, emails or documents produced in relation to the following meeting:

RCGP face-to-face meeting between Bill Morgan (No.10 Health Policy Adviser) and Kamila Hawthorne, held on 15 December 2022.

I would be grateful if you could provide all relevant information within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.

If you require any clarification or additional details regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully,

Jeremy Beakind

Dear Cabinet Office,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Cabinet Office's handling of my FOI request 'Meeting between No.10 Health Policy Adviser and RCGP Kamila Hawthorne'.

Thank you for the provision of some of the data requested.

I am writing to formally appeal the decision made by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to withhold the document titled “Prescribing Working Group Minutes - 3rd July 2024” under Section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I appreciate the need for confidentiality in government policy formulation; however, I believe that the public interest in transparency and patient safety outweighs the arguments for non-disclosure in this particular instance.

-Grounds for Appeal
Public Interest in Transparency: The transition of regulatory oversight of Physician Associates (PAs) and Anaesthesia Associates (AAs) to the General Medical Council (GMC) is a significant policy change scheduled for December 2024. This shift will impact clinical practice across the NHS, particularly with respect to the prescribing rights of these practitioners. As such, the public and medical professionals have a legitimate and pressing interest in understanding the basis for these changes, especially given the potential implications for patient safety.

The DHSC acknowledges a general public interest in transparency; however, withholding the minutes of a working group that deliberates critical issues such as prescribing rights undercuts the ability of the public and healthcare stakeholders to provide informed feedback before the regulatory changes take effect.

Patient Safety Concerns: There is an established concern regarding the competence and safety of PAs and AAs in comparison to traditionally trained doctors, given their shorter training duration and narrower clinical scope. Expanding prescribing rights without clear and transparent justifications may pose serious risks to patient safety. The public has the right to scrutinise and understand the discussions and expert opinions informing these decisions. Withholding this information limits the opportunity for public and professional scrutiny, which is vital to ensure the policy decisions being made are in the best interest of patient safety.

Prematurity Argument: The DHSC argues that disclosing the information prematurely could hinder the neutrality of civil servants and the quality of policy deliberations. However, given that the policy transition date is less than two months away, it is not reasonable to consider this disclosure as "premature." In fact, disclosing the minutes now could help inform stakeholders and allow for a more informed and productive consultation process before any irreversible decisions are made. By delaying disclosure until after the policy is finalised, the DHSC risks losing public trust and undermining confidence in the regulatory transition.

-Request for Consideration
I urge the DHSC to reconsider its decision in light of the strong public interest in ensuring that the regulatory changes surrounding PAs and AAs are transparent and evidence-based. At a minimum, I request that a summary document highlighting the key issues discussed, expert opinions considered, and patient safety assessments conducted be released. This would demonstrate the DHSC’s commitment to transparency and help build confidence in the policy process.

If the DHSC maintains that it cannot release the full minutes, I request a detailed explanation specifying how the disclosure of this particular information would concretely undermine policy development, as well as a review of whether any redacted version could be shared to strike a balance between transparency and confidentiality.

I look forward to your response and request that this appeal is treated with urgency given the proximity of the regulatory changes.

Yours faithfully,

Jeremy Beakind

Dear Cabinet Office,

Apologies, this response was sent to the wrong FOI request. Please disregard the internal review in relation to this request. I await the data as requested by 6th November 2024.

Yours faithfully,

Jeremy Beakind

Dear Cabinet Office,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Cabinet Office's handling of my FOI request 'Meeting between No.10 Health Policy Adviser and RCGP Kamila Hawthorne'.

As you may be aware, ICO guidance states that a section 35(1)(a) exemption can only be applied to the formulation or development of government policy. It goes on to say that only Ministers have the final say on government policy, and "any decisions or adjustments made by someone else must therefore be implementation or management decisions, rather than policy development".

As the information I requested does not refer to a ministerial decision, I am requesting an 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/m...

Yours faithfully,

Jeremy Beakind