Transparency and trust - why the DHSC must reveal advisory group members
Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 9:40 Email sent yesterday to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To whom it may concern
The Guardian today reports that ‘The DHSC has set up a stakeholder advisory group to help it decide who should become responsible for health improvement.’
See ‘Health leaders warn Boris Johnson over axing of Public Health England’
I would be grateful if you could send me a list of the individuals (and their relevant organisations) that are on the advisory group (and who will chair it), and the reason/s they were invited to be members of the group.
Kind regards,
Simon Clark
Director, Forest
The reason this matters is because the make up of the advisory group may give us an early indication of what we can expect when Public Health England is put out of its misery next March.
If it’s the usual suspects then expect more of the same, albeit under a different name.
Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if the group included some people from outside the public health bubble.
Also it wouldn’t surprise me if a battle develops between Number Ten and the DHSC over future public health policy (and implementation) and it strikes me that this ‘advisory group’ is the DHSC making the first move to ‘own’ the discussion, and the eventual outcome.
Anyway, the board was apparently due to meet for the first time yesterday so I do hope there will be complete transparency.
Then again, don’t hold your breath because I’ve been here before.
In November 2017, in response to a parliamentary question tabled by Philip Davies MP, it was revealed that Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH, was a member of something called the smoke free prisons project board.
I had never heard of such a body and could find no mention of it anywhere. So I emailed the Ministry of Justice and among the questions I asked were:
1. Please provide a list of all members of the national smoke free prisons project board.
2. When was the national smoke free prisons project board set up?
3. How many times has the board met since it was set up?
4. Please provide the name of the chair.
5. How is the national smoke free prisons project board funded?
See ‘Questions that need answers’ (Taking Liberties)
Bizarrely the Ministry of Justice declined to answer even one of those questions, citing the “cost limit” which is “the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days determining whether the department holds the information.”
As it happens we currently have a researcher working on another project that involves a series of FOI requests to various government departments and the estimated cost of responding to our enquiries has been cited twice already as the reason why our requests have been declined.
Undeterred we have responded by submitting some more requests that should meet their conditions. It does however mean that some of the information we hoped to elicit will have to wait.
Watch this space.
Reader Comments (2)
You can bet your life bully Arnott and crew will be on it. Nothing will change. The abolition of public health England was just a scam designed to shove blame for Covid failures while patting our persecutors and fat haters on the back with the promise of a new job in a new quango.
The government does not work for the people or those whose votes it wants, it works for healthist lobbyists and bullies who win every single election no matter who we vote for.
Personally, I will never vote again because there is no point but I will live my life how I choose because I was not born for the benefit of Debs Arnott and Co's salaries.
Transparency is essential for a sustainable democracy. These so-called advisors need to be named. They should aso represent the range of community interests and not empower a narrow group of technocrats that gain power by advocating totalitarian approaches for social control (that seemingly empower and enrich themselves at public expense).