Dear Nick Clegg MP,
I am concerned about the government's proposed NHS changes. Lansley's plans are seen almost unanimously across the health sector as harmful to NHS provision, harmful to the public end user, and only beneficial to private profiteering contractors.
I've seen reports that the Department of Health constructed a 'risk report' regarding the plans but that they won't publish it. I believe the opacity of the processes of government as it stands is a crime against democracy and that we need to recognise the importance of true freedom of information.
Please vote on Wednesday to release the risk report.
Please vote as a person, as a member of the public, and with your heart as well as your head.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr *******,
Thank you very much for contacting me about the national NHS risk register.
Liberal Democrats have always been strong supporters of the right for individuals to obtain certain Government information through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. This is why our party supported a commitment to introduce a Freedom of Information Act in our 1997 manifesto. During the last parliament, we also campaigned to ensure that the last Labour Government were not simply allowed to veto FOI requests as and when it suited their needs. However, we also recognise that the Government has a right itself to appeal a decision when they believe that potentially sensitive information could be compromised, or if it would prevent open and frank discussion between policy makers. It is therefore important that we consider the request for the release of the Department of Health's risk register within this context.
The risk register sets out all of the potential risks identified by the Department of Health for the entire range of areas for which it is responsible. These include financial risks, policy risks and sensitive commercial and contractual risks. It is a common tool used to manage and mitigate risks, so that they do not in practice materialise. This practice also took place under the last Labour Government. Therefore, whilst we do recognise the public interest in this information, we must also give careful consideration as to what the unintended consequences could be if a decision was taken to release risk registers in the future. One such possibility could be that the most significant risks will no longer be recorded, and no solution or mitigating action will therefore be identified. There is also the danger that the vital advice given to Ministers of the risks connected with policy decisions would be compromised, given that officials would inevitably be hesitant to record meaningful risks in the future. It may also inadvertently make staff unwilling to report bad news to their senior management and ministers, all of which could have potentially devastating consequences.
As identified above, this is therefore not just about a Department of Health risk-register but about risk registers across Government containing financially and contractually sensitive information. Given the precedent this decision would set across the Government, it is understandable that the Department of Health made the decision in December to appeal the Information Commissioner’s decision, with an appeal hearing to go ahead in early March this year.
On the specific issue of the Health and Social Care Bill, The Department of Health is required to be open and transparent about the effects the Health of Social Care Bill will deliver, through the publication of impact assessments and ministerial statements. These are published and were last updated in September. I would encourage you to view these through the Department of Health’s website, here:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsLegislation/DH_123583 .
In addition to this, I do not believe that withholding the risk register will significantly affect the scrutiny of the Bill as it goes through the report stage in the Lords. Indeed, in November last year the Government’s health minister in the Lords, Earl Howe, outlined the broad issues covered by the risk register. They include: how best to manage the parliamentary passage of the Bill and the potential impact of Royal Assent being delayed on the transition in the NHS; how to co-ordinate planning while maintaining financial control; how to ensure that lines of accountability are clear in the new system and that different bodies work together effectively, how to minimise disruption for staff and maintain morale during transition, to minimise the costs of moving to a new system, and finally, how to properly resource the teams responsible for implementing the changes.
I do hope that this helps to address the points you raised and provides you reassurance that not releasing this risk register is in the best interests of full and frank policy-making.
Thank you again for contacting me about this issue.
Yours sincerely
Nick Clegg MP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I particularly liked the argument that if we asked government departments to be transparent, they'd start hiding the truth, so we'll just let them stay opaque.
Paragraph 4 amused me as well. The whole point is that a secretive risk report totally undermines their transparency.
In Cleggs defence, the system is rotten, it's difficult to keep things rolling and I can see how publishing this would shake things up a fair bit by way of precedent. We just disagree on whether this would be a bad thing.