Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to make an official request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I would like to request copies of any emails sent or received by Mr Phil Harper, Deputy Director for Professional Regulation, related to the "Physician Associate Schools Council" (PASC) or containing references to "PASC". The scope of this request covers the period from 5th July 2024 to 15th September 2024.

If it would be possible to narrow the scope of this request in any way that would expedite its handling while still providing access to the relevant information, I would appreciate your advice.

Should any part of this request be exempt from disclosure, please provide a full explanation of the reasons for the exemption, along with details of the public interest test where applicable. Additionally, I request that any non-exempt information be provided in its entirety, with redactions applied only to the exempt material.

I look forward to your response within the statutory 20 working days as outlined in the Act.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

Apologies, I used AI to generate that template and forgot to add my name.

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 Department of Health and Social Care,

I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the DHSC's response to my FOI request, specifically the redaction of significant portions of the "Prescribing Working Group Minutes - 3rd July 2024" under Section 35(1)(a). I have lodged a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) regarding this matter, as I believe the redactions were unwarranted and not in the public interest.

The withheld information pertains directly to the prescribing rights of Physician Associates (PAs) and Anaesthesia Associates (AAs), a matter of pressing public and professional concern. With the recent announcement of an independent review of these roles by Health Secretary Wes Streeting, full access to these minutes is critical for stakeholders to provide informed submissions. Transparency is vital to ensure trust and accountability in such significant policy decisions, particularly where patient safety is concerned.

The argument that disclosure could hinder internal deliberations is invalid, as the policy implementation is imminent, with regulatory changes scheduled for December 2024. The deliberative phase is effectively complete, and releasing the information now would facilitate informed stakeholder engagement rather than undermine the policymaking process.

I urge the DHSC to reconsider its position and provide either an unredacted version of the minutes or a detailed summary. Doing so would uphold the principles of transparency and accountability in government policy.

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

Jeremy Beakind