Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

For each of the following written Parliamentary answers:

1. HL219 25/5/2022
2. UIN1507 7/6/2022
3. UIN11547 14/6/2022
4. UIN15321 20/6/2022
5. UIN6923 27/6/2022
6. UIN21130 4/7/2022

1. Please provide the following details from the Parliamentary Question Template:

Which individual drafted the answer
What branch or section they were in
Which building and room they occupied
What date they completed the template
The answer to the question “Is this PQ controversial (and why/why not)?
The answer to the question “What is the policy context?”

Which member of the Senior Civil Service approved the suggested answer
What branch or section they were in
Which building and room they occupied
What date they approved the template

What date the Minister approved the answer

2. Additionally for each one please detail whether contributions for the each of the above answers were sourced from other Arms Length Bodies (ALB). If so what ALB(s) were these?

For the avoidance of doubt as the approval for each answer must be deputy director or higher please provide the name of the approver in each case. Obviously a person above band 9 may also have prepared the draft answer so these details must also be disclosed.

Yours faithfully,

Louise Bicknell

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

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

Thank you for your response of 26 May.

I would like to request an internal review of your withholding of the information from the Parliamentary Question (PQ) template for each of the six answers requested for the form on the scribe system section “is this PQ controversial (and why/why not?)”.

Your response (and refusal to provide the information) is on the sole basis of the application of section 35(1)(d) as it relates to the operation of a ministerial private office, and then you are applying the public interest test to withhold this information.

I set out below why both your application of the exemption and your application of the public interest test is not appropriate.

A. APPLICATION OF THE EXEMPTION

The DHSC states that “as the information relates to internal and continuously updated, Private Office processes, we consider it exempt under section 35(1)(d) of the FOIA, which provides protection for information relating to the operation of a ministerial public office.”

The aim of this exemption is to ensure that ministerial business is managed effectively and efficiently. The section refers specifically to the operation of the a ministerial public office. The ICO’s reference paper refers to this as covering information about administrative support to a minister, so is interpreted fairly narrowly limiting it to routine administrative and management processes, the allocation of responsibilities, internal decisions about ministerial priorities or similar issues. It will not automatically cover the content of all ministerial papers just because they pass through the ministerial office.

This request for information is not looking for routine administrative information as above, but rather the information about the preparation of the response to Parliamentary Questions which are “the most common method used by MPs and Peers to obtain information about Government, hold the Government to account, press for action and get information placed on the record” (Source written PQs guidance DHSC).

While there may be many PQs handled by a ministers private office, there is a procedure in place to answer these, to compile the information and to consolidate it into a template.

The process is for the template to be drafted based on supporting materials and signed off by the first individual named as in accordance with the DHSC written PQs guidance. This template is then subject to an approval process at a Senior Civil Service (SCS) level. This process appears to be done on a computer system called “Scribe” which doubtless has a very good quality audit trail. The sign off process is a very important control. The SCS clearance must be of a deputy director or higher. “Deputy Directors are accountable for the content of all responses to PQs [Parliamentary Questions] that fall within their area of responsibility. They are responsible for how they organise their teams to respond to PQs, taking into account the complexity and sensitivity of the subject area, other business needs and team configuration.” (Source written PQs guidance DHSC). The SCS would be expected to hold the relevant expertise to approve the PQ answer.

The review of the template and the sign off for a PQ is not an exercise in administration. Indeed I would submit that preparation of the template by the person initially consolidating the source information is also not administration. Both the initial preparer of the answer and the SCS are exercising the role of a “professional” person. The SCS in reviewing all the information and the draft answer are providing both oversight and their specialist knowledge and expertise to confirm that the answer to be provided to the Minister meets the DHSC written PQs guidance that “ replies must:
- be clear, relevant and informative
- answer all aspects of the question
- be accurate and not misleading, or it can lead to an accusation of a minister misleading Parliament
- phrased in a simple and logical way” (Source written PQs guidance DHSC)

In this FOIA I am not looking for the background information such as the emails and other sources of information that that fed into the template, rather the final information that was placed in the Parliamentary Question Template alongside the draft answer prepared and provided to the Minister.

The part of the parliamentary question template that is being withheld - “is this PQ controversial (and why/why not?)” - relates to the substantive element of the PQ and the issues underlying it - whether or not it is controversial at that point in time. The answer to this is not administrative.

Therefore this information is outside the scope of the exemption and should be released.

Further the answer to the question “is this PQ controversial (and why/why not?)” is simply a continuation of the question “what is the policy context?”. Given that you have disclosed material that is responsive to the question “what is the policy context?”, your approach to disclosure is inconsistent and appears irrational.

B. APPLICATION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST

I note that the DHSC apply the public interest test to support withholding this information - citing that “in order to be confident in the independence of the Private Office support staff, they must be sure that they are not allowing external considerations, such as the possible public perception of their PQ processes, to affect their judgement in administering the Private Office”.

This is the only ground cited to support the public interest in withholding the information. There are three main reasons why it is in the public interest that this information should be disclosed. These are summarised in points 1 0 3 below with further amplification given in the following sections:

1. It has already been publicly acknowledged to Parliament that the answers that were provided were incorrect for a period of four weeks from 24 May to 21 June 2022. How this error occurred, for this period of time for 13 answers, which misinformed MPs and Lords and reduced the opportunity for parliamentary debate on this topic is of significant public interest.

2. It is in the public interest that the correction is:
a) notified to the members of the public who signed a petition for Evusheld to be provided in early 2022, who received similarly incorrect information by the DHSC; and
b) reflected on the face of the parliamentary record for each of the 13 answers.

3. It is now a year since the last misleading “corrected” answer was published and events have moved on. We are no longer subject to pandemic processes and the DHSC PQ procedures have been changed. Therefore how can it be in the public interest to withhold the answers to this question now?

1. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED TO PARLIAMENT THAT THE ANSWERS THAT WERE PROVIDED WERE INCORRECT FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM 24 MAY TO 21 JUNE 2022. HOW THIS ERROR OCCURRED, FOR THIS PERIOD OF TIME FOR 13 ANSWERS, WHICH MISINFORMED MPS AND LORDS AND REDUCED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON THIS TOPIC IS OF SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST.

PQs play a key role “in the democratic process”. The pubic perception of the PQ process derives from the Ministerial Code that “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”.

The DHSC written PQs guidance states that “The answers that ministers give are published and read widely and our performance as a Department in answering questions accurately and on time is crucial to our reputation and credibility. It is the responsibility of all staff in the Department to take the lead on or contribute to providing draft answers and associated background material, when appropriate, to ensure that information provided is accurate and deadlines are met.”

There is significant public interest in understanding the information on which ministers make decisions and answer questions. The public needs to know that information placed on the parliamentary record is accurate and therefore can be debated in a timely manner by MPs and the Lords. Increased focus on these processes should help ensure that these inaccuracies do not arise in future, release of this information promotes transparency and allows the public to judge the quality of decisions made.

The details from the PQ template that are sought in this FOIA relate to six answers - a weekly sample over six weeks. Four of these answers, together with nine other answers on the same point (so thirteen in total), were the subject of a written parliamentary correction issued by both Will Quince and Lord Markham on 17 April 2023 covering the period 24 May 2022 to 21 June 2022. The reason for this correction is described as follows:

“In simplifying the technical language, the responses to these PQs incorrectly indicated that testing was ongoing. … No further testing of Evusheld … took place after 26 May 2022.”

The DHSC has acknowledged this in the response to the FOIA, stating that “We have reviewed and amended the process for checking responses to Parliamentary Questions (PQs) to ensure future accuracy”.

“After the draft answers to the PQs listed below had been cleared by the relevant Deputy Director, the language used was changed later in the process. The intention was to simplify the language used, but in the remaining internal stages of the clearance process, this inadvertently created an inaccuracy”.

How can it be in the public interest not to disclose the full background reasons why this information was not correct?

This FOIA request for information, and the release of this information, will not disrupt the operation of the private office or harm its effectiveness - as the operation of the private office has, by the DHSC’s own admission, already been changed. Disclosure of this answer from this template cannot undermine the efficiency of the process, again, as this has already changed.

The request seeks to obtain full transparency about how the inaccuracies arose. How these thirteen answers over four weeks could continue to contain inaccurate information is a major concern and clarity on how this happened is clearly in the public interest.

To put it in context for this entire period MPs and Lords did not have access to factual information that was known to the DHSC and which they had asked for. The information was withheld from MPs and, as a consequence, debate and future questions on this topic for the entire session of Parliament were not accurately informed.

2. IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT THE CORRECTION IS:
a) NOTIFIED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO SIGNED A PETITION FOR EVUSHELD TO BE PROVIDED IN EARLY 2022, WHO RECEIVED SIMILARLY INCORRECT INFORMATION BY THE DHSC; AND
b) REFLECTED ON THE FACE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY RECORD FOR EACH OF THE 13 ANSWERS.

I detail the rational for (a) and (b) below:

a) IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT THE CORRECTION IS NOTIFIED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WHO SIGNED A PETITION FOR EVUSHELD TO BE PROVIDED IN EARLY 2022, WHO RECEIVED SIMILARLY INCORRECT INFORMATION BY THE DHSC.

Members of the general pubic signed a petition to campaign for Evusheld in early 2022. On 25 May 2022 the Government responded to the petition by email to more than 10,000 members of the public stating that “The UKHSA has been carrying out further testing on the treatment’s effectiveness against the Omicron variant. These results will help inform any decisions on next steps for this treatment.”

Obviously we now know that this statement was also incorrect. This response was emailed to many thousands of people on 25th May 2022. This is a day after the date of the first written parliamentary answer which was subject to a written correction on this point.

These members of the public have not received any correction to the answer provided to them, even though the DHSC clearly has their email addresses. The fact that a petition raised over 10,000 signatures reinforces the argument that there was, at that point, (and remains) significant public interest in this matter.

b) IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT THE CORRECTION IS REFLECTED ON THE FACE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY RECORD.

It also remains a cause of concern that there is no link or cross reference on the face of the parliamentary record (that is accessible on line) from the original answers provided to the written correction. These STILL remain uncorrected, containing their original inaccurate text. The public therefore (and maybe some MPs) will continue, when searching the parliamentary record, to be mislead.

This continuing failure to correct the parliamentary record is also clearly not in the public interest.

3. IT IS NOW A YEAR SINCE THE LAST MISLEADING “CORRECTED” ANSWER WAS PUBLISHED AND EVENTS HAVE MOVED ON. WE ARE NO LONGER SUBJECT TO PANDEMIC PROCESSES AND THE DHSC PQ PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN CHANGED. THEREFORE HOW CAN IT BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO WITHHOLD THE ANSWERS TO THIS QUESTION NOW?

I do not know what information is being witheld, but given:

- the time that has elapsed since each of these answers were provided to Parliament - the latest being on 4 July 2022; and
- the fact that the decision to refer Evusheld into the NICE process, and not to use emergency measures to procure it, has been public knowledge since August 2022 (indeed the NICE process has now been completed)

this information must surely be historical now.

This is not a request for information about an ongoing processes. The emergency approval processes that were put in place for the pandemic have been disbanded. The information about Evusheld is no longer a contentious issue, given Evusheld is considered ineffective by NICE against current variants.

Please therefore review this decision.

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

Yours faithfully,

Louise Bicknell