Introduction

Following a refusal to accede to a request from Mr Medawar to provide information concerning the consultation which the Agency conducted in relation to issues discussed in his paper, the Antidepressant Web, he requested that the Agency review its decision in accordance with its procedures.

Circumstances leading to the Complaint:

In a letter responding to previous correspondence with Mr Medawar the Agency stated that it would be consulting widely with relevant bodies as part of its review of the issues raised in "The Antidepressant Web". Subsequently Mr Medawar asked in a letter of the 16th of January:

1) that a list be provided of all individuals and organisations the MCA had consulted to date (January 16th 1998) on the paper;

2) that he be given a representative example of the letter the MCA sent to those from whom opinions were sought;

3) whether the MCA had solicited views on any particular points;

4) whether the MCA had sent a copy of his paper to those consulted;

5) whether the MCA had offered to treat any replies to the enquiries in confidence; whether he

6) might in due course have copies of them if no undertaking of confidentiality had been given;

7) when did Dr Price become aware of certain scientific findings.

The Agency responded in a manner which Mr Medawar found unsatisfactory and on the 16th of February he wrote requesting a review of the decision and posed a number of additional questions which have not been included within the scope of this review.

Process followed in Assessing Mr Medawar's Appeal Against the Agency's Refusal to Disclose Information Reference OG 98/4

1 .A study was made of Mr Medawar's letter of appeal to confirm what he wished the agency to disclose.

2. The relevant SOP(SOP G3.97), the open Government Code of Practices on Access to Government Information, Second Edition (1997) and the Department of Health Internal Review Guidelines was read noting particularly that under the code "the presumption remains that information should be disclosed unless the harm likely to arise from disclosure would outweigh the public interest in making the information available and the advice in Section 2 of the Internal Review Guideline particularly Section 2 viz.

It is for departments to decide what form the internal review procedure should take. However, the guidance makes clear that in all cases the procedure should:

• be a single stage process;
• ensure that the applicant is fairly treated under the provisions of the Code;
• ensure any exemptions have been properly applied;
• the review in conducted by someone not involved in the initial decision.

3. A review of various items of correspondence provided to me with the request to assess this appeal.

4. Seeking written clarification on a number of points of fact relating to the correspondence.

5. Seeking advice and confirmation from legal department concerning which Exemptions under the Code might apply. These I believe are I b; I c; 2; 7b; 3 and 14.

6. Assessing each individual request as determined at paragraph 1 against each of the criteria (1 b; 1 c;2;7b; 13 and 14) to assess to the best of my ability whether the harm likely to arise from disclosure would outweigh the public interest in making the information available.

7. On this basis a table was constructed relating each question to the relevant criteria to summarise my opinions.

8. The Code was reread and I confirmed my evaluation.

Review Process

I have conducted the review using the appropriate Standard Operating Procedure (SOP G3.97), the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, Second Edition (1997) and the Department of Health Internal Review Guidelines.

Conclusion:

Opinion: On this occasion because no harm would be caused I find no reason not to release this information.

Opinion: In the Code government has only committed itself to releasing information and not any particular document. Therefore the Agency may refuse to provide the document required. However if all the information in a document is disclosable the most straight forward way to communicate information may be to release the document. Consequently the Agency should carefully reconsider whether disclosure of the information contained in the letter is reasonable and if so whether a specimen letter is the best means of communicating the information.

Opinion: I find no reason not to respond 'Yes' or No' to this question but depending on the nature of the particular points, the type of consultation and the consultees the detail of the points might not be releasable under the code.

Opinion: I find no reason not to release this information.

Opinion: I find no reason not to respond 'Yes' or No' to this question.

Opinion: I find that these copies should not be provided under Exemptions 1(b); 2; 7(b) and 14 of the Code.