Name: Mrs Mary Clarke Baker

Address: MARY.BAKER13@NTLWORLD.COM

Our Ref: FOI378

Subject: Freedom of Information Request.

Dear Mrs Mary Clarke Baker,

Thank you for your recent email dated 3rd August 2010 in which you make the following Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request:

“It would appear that my complaint and the preliminary assessment of Patients with Prescribed Tranquilliser Addiction illness – is at a complete stand still situation.  I am therefore requesting under the Freedom of Information Act all papers and or the report relating to Counsel’s advice of January 2010 that you have received”.

Your email was received on 3rd August 2010.

We can confirm that the Commission holds two documents related to the specified description:

1)    Counsel advice to the Commission on the use of Involuntary Tranquiliser Addiction; and

2)    An enquiry in to the physical dependence and addiction to prescription and over the counter medication – Report on an inquiry carried out by the All-Party Parliamentary Drug Misuse Group in the 2007 to 2008 Parliamentary session.

However, the documents have been withheld under the following exemptions:

• Section 21 FOIA (Information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means) – We are not required to provide information in response to a request if it is already reasonably accessible to you.  One document, relevant to your request, that the Commission holds is “An enquiry in to the physical dependence and addiction to prescription and over the counter medication – Report on an inquiry carried out by the All-Party Parliamentary Drug Misuse Group in the 2007 to 2008 Parliamentary session”.  This document is already in the public domain and available using the following link:

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/OneStopCMS/Core/CrawlerResourceServer.aspx?resource=174F8638-8C04-4C95-AF6E-A3F3E1978E01&mode=link&guid=49acfd08ada14e948e8ed01e06aeb7e3

• Section 30 FOIA (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) –

The Commission does not consider it appropriate to release advice from Counsel regarding the use of its functions relating to an investigation of a power conferred by any statute. Such actions are exempt under Section 30(2) (a) (iii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

• Section 31 FOIA (Law enforcement) – The advice from Counsel has been withheld because its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the exercise by the Commission of its functions for certain purposes specified in section 31(2) FOIA (s.31(1)(g)).  The relevant specified functions include, in particular, the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law.  This would include advice from Counsel in relation to the use of the Commission’s enforcement powers and future proceedings or actions.

We are of the view that disclosure is likely to cause prejudice to any future possible action if released to the public at large which is what a Freedom of Information Act response is. 

The prejudice would be to the Commission’s ability to exercise its function as a regulator in conducting preliminary inquiries and, depending on the outcome decide whether it should take enforcement action.

As is the proper practice with most potential legal action, initial correspondence and inquiries and or investigations are undertaken in confidence and in line with the principles of natural justice. Such correspondence would be protected by legal professional privilege.

This is the standard reasonable expectation because making such information public would prejudice these preliminary stages.

As the exemption under section 31(1) (g) is a qualified exemption the Commission conducted a public interest balancing test regarding disclosure. While the Commission is committed to the principles of transparency, accountability and public engagement, for the reasons stated above, the Commission is firmly of the view that to disclose the documents would prejudice its ability to conduct its role in law enforcement to such an extent that this outweighs the arguments in favour of disclosure. As our pre- enforcement enquiries are still continuing the Commission remains of this view.

The enforcement team would not normally release information when it is making preliminary inquiries in order to ascertain if an organisation is complying with equalities and human rights law. If information is disclosed to third parties then this could prejudice the outcome of our enquiries.

• Section 42 FOIA (Legal professional privilege) – The advice from Counsel has been withheld as information that is covered by legal advice privilege and / or litigation privilege.

The Information Tribunal and the High Court have emphasised the significant in-built public interest in withholding information to which legal professional privilege applies (see, in particular BERR v O’Brien & IC [2009] EWHC 164 (QB) at [53]).  The advice the Commission has received from Counsel in relation to the use of Involuntary Tranquiliser Addiction could reveal the Commission’s tactical and strategic approach to issuing proceedings, which are matters that are confidential and subject to legal professional privilege.

Although there is a general public interest in transparency, there is no public interest in disclosure of Counsel’s advice that outweighs the need for the Commission to obtain advice as to its legal rights, duties and obligations, and consider litigation in confidence.

The Commission must be able to consider its position in relation to contemplated litigation, consult its lawyers and prepare for, and conduct, such litigation in confidence and without fear of intrusion.  Disclosing the information could undermine the interests of the Commission and the fairness of the litigation.  There is no public interest in disclosing this information that outweighs the need for the Commission to obtain advice as to its legal rights, duties and obligations and conduct litigation in confidence.

If you are unhappy with our response and wish to request a review of our decision please write to the Corporate Communications Team using the contact details below.
Yours sincerely,

Sharon Patterson.

Corporate Communications Officer.

Equality and Human Rights Commission3rd Floor
Lancaster House
67 Newhall Street
B3 1NA
Email: foi@equalityhumanrights.com
Tel: 0845 604 6610
Fax: 0121 234 7312
Text Phone: 0845 604 6620

Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 4:10 PM

 Subject: Freedom of Information Request DH Case ref number: TO0000534847

 Dear Mr Haslam

 Thankyou for your email dated 18 August in response to our letter dated 13 August in which you asked

1. to have an Internal Review into the handling of the Department’s response issued by Genevieve Lobo; and

2. to process  a more detailed/ refined request for information/correspondence, minutes  and agendas of meetings between the review manager, Anne Grosskurth, the Drug Mis-use team and stakeholders, the scope of the NAC literature review and  PCT’s sampled for audit & relevant statistics etc.

We will aim to respond to you within the next 20 working days. Please  note that we will be dealing with points 1 & 2 above separately.

 Yours sincerely

Tony Doole
 Freedom of Information Team

From: “FOICOMMONS” <FOICOMMONS@parliament.uk>
To: <barry.benzocampaign@talktalk.net>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 3:03 PM
Subject: FOI Response F10-437

Dear Mr Haslam

Thank you for your e-mail requesting “minutes of the closed sessions of The
Health Select Committee Inquiry into The Influence of The Pharmaceutical
Industry 2004/5.Including discussions of the request by Phil Woolas MP for
the HSC to subpoena documentation from John Wyeth and Roche Products.

While notes are held, discussions which take place in formal private
meetings of select committees are exempted from the requirement for
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and your request for this
information is refused under the exemption set out in s.34(1) of the Freedom
of Information Act. This exemption is required to avoid an infringement of
the privileges of the House of Commons, which include the rights of
committee established under standing orders to determine whether, how and
when to publish records of meetings held in private. Under section 2 of the
Act, this is an absolute exemption and no public interest test applies.

I can tell you, however, that the Committee did ask for papers from Wyeth,
amongst other companies, in the course of its inquiry. It agreed to do this
at its meeting on 8 December 2004. The extract from the Minutes of
Proceedings reads:

        Ordered, That the Committee do send for papers from the following
pharmaceutical companies in connection with its inquiry into The Influence
of the Pharmaceutical Industry: AstraZenaca, Eli Lilly and Company  Limited,
GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer Limited and Wyeth.-(The Chairman.)

The Committee asked Professor Gerard Hastings and colleagues at the
University of Stirling to analyse the documents provided and produce a
report. This report was published as part of the evidence for the inquiry
(volume II of the Committee’s report, evidence pages 498 to 506). The
various pharmaceutical companies were asked to comment on Professor
Hastings’ report and their responses were also published (volume II,
evidence pages 507 to 516). Copies of the University of Stirling report and
the companies’ responses are enclosed with this letter.

I hope that this information is helpful.

You may, if dissatisfied with the treatment of your request, ask the House
of Commons to conduct an internal review of this decision. Requests for
internal review should be addressed to: Freedom of Information Officer,
Department of Resources, House of Commons London SW1 OAA or
foicommons@parliament.uk . Please ensure that you specify the nature of your
complaint and any arguments or points that you wish to make.

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security
House of Commons

UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received
it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any
unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has
been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused
by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/es-foi/documents/foidisclosure/con028379.pdf