Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care
39 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0EU
www.gov.uk/dhsc
Mr Jeremy Beakind
By email to: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
7 November 2024
Annex A: DHSC response to initial request
Annex B: Request for internal review
Dear Mr Beakind,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 (FOIA): INTERNAL REVIEW
CASE REFERENCE: IR-1536438 (FOI-1532165)
You originally wrote to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) on
15 September requesting information relating to ‘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’. We responded to you on
10 October and a copy of our response, including the full text of your request, can be
found in Annex A.
You subsequently emailed DHSC on 10 October requesting an internal review into the
handling of your original request. A copy of your email can be found in Annex B.
The purpose of an internal review is to assess how your Freedom of Information (FOI)
request was handled in the first instance and to determine whether the original decision
given to you was correct. This is an independent review as I was not involved in the
original decision.
DHSC has revisited the public interest test and has decided to release the minutes
referred to within the email document titled “Prescribing Working Group Minutes - 3rd July
2024”. Please note that some of the information has been redacted under section 35(1)(a)
of the FOIA, which provides protection for the information that relates to the formulation or
development of Government policy. Section 35 is a qualified exemption and requires
consideration of the public interest test. These redactions have been annotated
accordingly.
All other redactions within this document have been made under section 40(2) of the
FOIA which provides for the protection of personal information. Section 40 prohibits a
public body from disclosing personally identifiable information as doing so would
contravene data protection principles.
DHSC upholds its original decision regarding the remainder of the requested information.
Conclusion
After careful consideration, I have concluded that the response you received to your FOI
request was partially compliant with the requirements of the FOIA. This is because we
could have released some of the information at the FOI stage.
The review is now complete.
If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for a decision.
Guidance on contacting the ICO can be found a
t https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us and
information about making a complaint can be found a
t https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint. Yours sincerely,
Mr D Stanton
FOI Internal Reviews
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Annex A: DHSC response to initial request
Mr Jeremy Beakind
By email to: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
10 October 2024
Dear Mr Beakind,
Freedom of Information Request Reference FOI-1532165 Thank you for your request dated 15 September to the Department of Health and Social
Care (DHSC), a copy of which can be found in the accompanying annex.
Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
DHSC holds information relevant to your request.
Please see the attached seven documents. Please note that some information has been
redacted under section 40(2) of the FOIA which provides for the protection of personal
information. Section 40 prohibits a public body from disclosing personally identifiable
information as doing so would contravene data protection principles.
With regards to the document titled “Prescribing Working Group Minutes - 3rd July 2024”,
please note the attachment to this email is being withheld under section 35(1)(a) of the
FOIA, which provides protection for the information that relates to the formulation or
development of Government policy. Section 35 is a qualified exemption and requires
consideration of the public interest test.
DHSC recognises the general public interest in making this information available for the
sake of greater transparency and openness. However, DHSC takes the view that the
section 35 exemption is intended to ensure that the possibility of public exposure does not
deter from full, candid and proper deliberation of policy formulation and development,
including the exploration of all options.
Civil servants and subject experts need to be able to engage in the free and frank
discussion of all the policy options internally, to expose their merits and demerits and their
possible implications as appropriate. Their candour in doing so will be affected by their
assessment of whether the content of such discussion will be disclosed.
Premature disclosure of information protected under section 35 could prejudice good
working relationships and the neutrality of civil servants, and we have therefore
determined that the balance of public interest favours withholding this information.
If you are not satisfied with the handling of this request, you have the right to appeal by
asking for an internal review. This should be sent to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
or to the address at the top of this letter and be submitted within two months of the date of
this letter.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communication.
If you are not content with the outcome of your internal review, you may complain directly
to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Generally, the ICO cannot make a
decision unless you have already appealed our original response and received our
internal review decision. You should raise your concerns with the ICO within three months
of your last meaningful contact with us.
Guidance on contacting the ICO can be found at https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us and
information about making a complaint can be found at https://ico.org.uk/make-a-
complaint.
Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Team
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Annex
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Beakind <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2024 8:08 AM
To: FreedomofInformation <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Physician Associate Schools Council (PASC)
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]
Annex B: Request for internal review
From: Jeremy Beakind xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 4:59 PM
To: FreedomofInformation xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Physician Associate Schools
Council (PASC)
[You don't often get email from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.
Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
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
