Article 5.3, the DHSC, and the ‘independent’ Khan review

Further to previous posts about the ‘independent’ Khan review into tobacco control, I received yesterday an email from the Department of Health and Social Care.

It was in response to an email I sent on March 10, eleven weeks ago. Sent to TobaccoIndependentReview@dhsc.gov.uk (the address that was given for correspondence about the review), my email had two aims.

The first was to discover the closing date for responses to the review that was being conducted by Javed Khan OBE at the request of the Secretary of State for Health Sajid Javid:

The terms of reference published on 9 March 2022 say 'The review will take place over a period of 12 weeks' but there is no closing date for submissions nor can we find any reference to a closing date anywhere else.

The second was to request a meeting with Khan:

… so we can discuss with him directly the views of many confirmed smokers who enjoy smoking and do not wish to quit or be forced to quit as a result of punitive taxation or other anti-smoking measures.

I understand that Mr Khan has already spoken to 'parliamentarians, devolved administrations, academics, civil society, directors of public health & clinicians'. As director of Forest I would welcome the opportunity to engage directly with Mr Khan so we can explain our concerns about the forthcoming Tobacco Control Plan and the possible impact on freedom of choice and personal responsibility.

The following day (March 11) I received a surprisingly prompt response from someone working for the Addictions Team at the Office for Health Improvements and Disparities (OHID), formerly Public Health England, which shares a Whitehall address with the DHSC.

It read:

Thank you for your email. The call for submissions that Mr Khan tweeted is not necessarily [my emphasis] a formal government consultation, and as such does not have a formal closing date. We are currently a little over half way through our 12 week review. If you would like for your views to be considered, I would advise sending them in the next 2-3 weeks to give us time to properly consider where they might fit into the report.

Aside from finding it odd that there was no formal closing date for submissions, I was astounded that even within government there appeared to be confusion over whether the Khan review was or was not a formal government consultation.

Critically there was no response to my request for a meeting with Javed Khan despite the fact that on February 23 he had tweeted of having had a:

Very productive week on the #tobaccoindependentreview. Several roundtable discussions with parliamentarians, devolved administrations, academics, civil society, directors of public health & clinicians …

A week earlier, on February 16, the anti-smoking group Fresh (formerly Smokefree North East) had also tweeted:

Delighted to meet you last week Javed. Thanks for the opportunity. Lots more we could discuss with you about work in NE with many partners determined to achieve #Smokefree2030 ambition. Don't hesitate to ask for more details and ideas.

On March 31, undeterred by Khan’s apparent reluctance/refusal to engage with Forest (if indeed he had even seen my request for a meeting), I sent the following email to the review address attaching a copy of a 19-page letter to Khan:

I'd be grateful if you could confirm receipt of the document attached and forward it to Javed Khan for his consideration as part of his independent review.

No reply, not even an acknowledgement.

Nor did I get a response to a follow-up email I sent four days later:

Could someone confirm that my letter attached to my previous email has been received and forwarded to Javed Khan. Thanks.

A further request – to attend the launch of Khan’s ‘independent’ report (scheduled for May 25 before it was postponed last week) – was also ignored.

Likewise the voicemail message I left for a ‘named individual’ at the OHID on May 20.

Frustrated but not surprised, Forest last week posted this tweet:

As you can see it included a link to Khan’s tweet that featured details of the postponed launch so it’s safe to think he probably read it.

Yesterday, eleven weeks since I first wrote to the review address, I received, out of the blue, the following response from the Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries desk at the DHSC. Coincidence?

Thank you for your correspondence of 10 March about the Independent review of Smokefree 2030 policies: terms of reference. I have been asked to reply and I apologise for the delay in doing so.

The independent review is not a formal government consultation. However, views and opinions were accepted in the independent review mailbox for the duration of the review process. This process has now concluded. The process is being supported by Government officials, and therefore has been conducted in compliance with Article 5.3. of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

‘Asked to reply’? By whom, exactly? I may be wrong but my guess is that the Forest tweet posted on Monday prompted Khan to ask his minders at the DHSC to reply to our complaint that he had not responded to our request for a meeting.

Hence the reference to Article 5.3 which, as others have noted, 'was never meant as a blanket ban on interaction' with the tobacco industry or groups (such as Forest) that receive funding from tobacco companies.

Either way it blows to smithereens the idea that the Khan review is independent because in what way is it independent if the DHSC is citing Article 5.3 and the involvement of government officials?

Which brings me back to Martin Dockrell, tobacco control programme lead at the Office for Health Improvements and Disparities (OHID), formerly Public Health England.

On February 15, Dockrell tweeted ‘Chuffed to be assisting @JavedKhanCEO on his project’.

That followed this tweet by Khan on the same day:

I’m pleased to be leading an ambitious #TobaccoIndependentReview of smoking policy- Government launches landmark reviews to tackle health disparities - GOV.UK (gov.uk)

Rumour has it that Dockrell is not just ‘assisting’ Khan but the OHID has been providing the secretariat for his review.

I don’t know if this is true but there is strong circumstantial evidence:

Dockrell’s tweet; the use of a DHSC email address for submissions to the review; and the fact that the person who originally replied to my email to that address on March 10 works for the OHID.

I need hardly remind readers that prior to joining Public Health England (now the OHID) Dockrell spent seven years working for Action on Smoking and Health.

The question I now want to get to the bottom of is the extent of his role ‘assisting’ Khan and who blocked our request to meet Khan, citing Article 5.3.

If we get any answers that shed further light on the review I'll let you know.

Watch this space.