Myles’ Blog-On the campaign trail

Myles’ blog

“This month’s blog is slightly different than usual as I will be covering three topics in one blog rather than just a single issue.

Firstly, I issue my challenge to the candidates fighting for a seat on the council for Grays Riverside ward. Last year I said that I considered myself a floating voter and I do so again. Last year I ended up having only a visit from a single candidate and therefore decided not to vote at all as I didn’t have the information from the other candidates from which to decide who the best person for the position was. This year I would like to see a proper campaign from all the candidates. Work for my vote or you won’t get it!

Secondly, I found the idea of having a referendum on whether we have a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU a pointless waste of time and money. Yes, Thurrock was a pioneer in this matter, being the first authority to hold the referendum, but it produced the result that was a foregone conclusion – we do want a referendum on the EU issue.

Wouldn’t the more intelligent thing to do have been to have just held a referendum on the EU membership issue and put the money spent on the pointless exercise into educating the general public on the implications for staying in or withdrawing from the EU so that they could make a truly informed decision on the matter? Some people may have their views on the EU coloured by xenophobic rhetoric rather than understanding the full implications of either decision which is not a good thing when the fate of the country hangs on the ultimate decision.

Now onto my final topic – national politics.

Earlier this week I received the judgement document on the decision about the publication of the NHS risk register, a report that gives the worst case scenario on what could happen due to the shake-up of the NHS that the Conservatives proposed and has now become law. For months the Government has used the excuse that the publication of the Transitional Risk Register (TRR) was not in the public’s interest. The tribunal who heard the case, however, disagreed and actually called into question the Government’s methods in bringing these reforms in. Paragraphs 83 to 91 show exactly how the Government has pressed ahead with some of its reforms before the Bill became law. Below is paragraph 85 from the judgement.

“85. From the evidence it is clear that the NHS reforms were introduced in an exceptional way. There was no indication prior to the White Paper that such wide-ranging reforms were being considered. The White Paper was published without prior consultation. It was published within a very short period after the Coalition Government came into power. It was unexpected. Consultation took place afterwards over what appears to us a very short period considering the extent of the proposed reforms. The consultation hardly changed policy but dealt largely with implementation. Even more significantly the Government decided to press ahead with some of the policies even before laying a Bill before Parliament. The whole process had to be paused because of the general alarm at what was happening.” (emphasis added)

This is shocking to say the least. What it boils down to is the Conservatives riding rough-shod over the democratic process.

I was part of the campaign to have the risk register published ahead of the NHS Reform Bill getting passed into law. As part of that campaign, I contacted Thurrock’s MP, Jackie Doyle-Price, asking for her to support the publication of the document. Her reply followed the party line – “The Information Commissioner’s decision to order the release of the Department of Health’s risk register creates a precedent that would have implications across the whole of Government. There is a real danger that should risk registers be routinely released into the public domain, then risks would no longer be recorded accurately.”

There is no real evidence that this would be the case as stated in paragraph 66 of the judgement –
“66. Lord O’Donnell brought to our attention his own view of the likely chilling effect and the opinions of others. There was no actual evidence of such an effect.”

Ms Doyle-Price also stated that “No Minister of any colour has ever published these reports.” Actually, similar documents have been released to no ill-effect as can be seen from paragraph 67 of the judgement –
“67. We note that independent research carried out by the Constitution Unit at University College London has concluded that there is little evidence of FOIA leading to a chilling effect.5 Also in a previous case, OGC v IC EA/2006/2068 & 80 (“OGC”), where the Information Tribunal ordered the disclosure of Gateway Reviews apparently there has been no evidence of a chilling effect since their release.

Mr Healey was the Minister responsible for the Office of Government Commerce at the time and said that there was no evidence that a chilling effect developed as a result of the release of the reviews even after he moved to The Treasury. Although Gateway Reviews are different from risk registers there are strong similarities. They are both PRINCE2 project management tools using a RAG rating. In the OGC case the Gateway Zero Reviews were concerned with another highly controversial government policy relating to the introduction of identity cards. They were produced while the Bill was still being debated in Parliament. They were designed to identify risks and their mitigation.” (emphasis added)

The Tribunal concluded that “This register would have informed the public debate at a time of considerable public concern. It would have helped the public understand whether the government had understood the risks involved and what measures it was considering for dealing with them. Disclosure could have gone a long way to alleviating these concerns and reassuring the public that it was doable or it may have demonstrated the justification for the concerns so that public debate at a crucial time could have been better informed.” It also stated that “We find that at the time the TRR was requested and the DOH dealt with the application of the public interest test, the public interest in maintaining the s.35(1)(a) exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.”

Ms Doyle-Price stated in her reply to me that the opposition was “deliberately scaremongering”. I say that the opposition was doing what they could to help inform the public of the damage the Government’s NHS reforms are about to do.

It must now call into question whether Ms Doyle-Price is actually the right person to represent the residents of Thurrock as she very rarely rebels against her party and her actions in refusing to support the publication of the NHS risk register shows that she only has her party’s interests to heart rather than the interests of the people she represents.

You can read the full NHS risk register judgement report at http://valen1971.webs.com/Documents/NHS%20Risk%20Report%20judgement.pdf

And you can read Ms Doyle-Price’s reply to my e-mail at
http://valen1971.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/reply-from-jackie-doyle-price.html

Normal service will be resumed next month.

Until next time…

If you would like to comment on any of my columns, please send them to [email protected] or you can check out my personal blogs at http://valen1971.webs.com/ or http://valen1971.blogspot.com. You can also find me on Twitter (@valen1971).