I found this letter from the GMC in response to a freedom of information request interesting regarding the appointment of one Penny Mellor in particular the third paragraph, but I include the whole letter. Some days the GMC is free to preach one thing, other days free to practise another.
Our ref: F10/3190/JM
Dear Mr Thackeray,
I refer to your email dated 9 August 2010 in which you made a number of
Freedom of Information requests in connection with the appointment of Ms
Penny Mellor to the Working Group on Child Protection.
I confirm that your requests have now been considered in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I apologise for the delay in
providing you with a response.
The selection of Penny Mellor to the Child Protection Working Group was
made in order to ensure that the Working Group represented the full range
of parents' views across the spectrum. In order to produce guidance that
will secure broad professional and public acceptance and credibility, it
is important for the Working Group to embrace an array of different views
sourced from diverse individuals, groups and interests. This could mean
the inclusions of campaigners and critics of the GMC whether they be
paediatricians or even vociferous and outspoken critics such as Penny
Mellor. We understand that others take a different view, and we respect
their right to comment and criticise our decision.
The guidance the group recommends to Council will be the result of the
collective views of the group, based on the experience, evidence and
comments obtained from our call for evidence, other engagement and,
following publication of draft guidance, a full public consultation. No
individual's view will be dominant or determine the style, tone or content
of the guidance.
Given the nature of the group and each member's role on it, as outlined
above, the members have not been asked to provide a declaration of
interests. Therefore in accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA I
confirm that the GMC does not hold the information you have requested.
You also request details of all complaints against doctors made by Ms
Mellor to the GMC. We believe this information is subject to exemptions
listed in the FOIA and in accordance with the requirements of the FOIA
this email acts as a refusal notice in respect to your request for this
information. The exemptions we believe apply are:
Section 40(2) by virtue of Section 40(3)(a)(i) - Personal Information.
This relates to information requested which is about a third party, and
the disclosure of which would be in breach of the Principles of the Data
Protection Act 1998 (DPA). In this instance we consider that the
disclosure of this type of information would breach the First Principle,
which requires that the processing of data is fair and lawful. We consider
that the conditions in Schedule 2 of the DPA, relating the processing of
personal data, are not met and therefore the release of the information
you have requested would be unlawful.
Section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA - Law Enforcement. This relates to situations
where the disclosure of information, would, or would be likely to,
prejudice our regulatory function. We believe that the disclosure of this
information would be likely to have an adverse impact on our fitness to
practise function by discouraging individuals from raising their concerns,
in the knowledge that details of this nature may be made publicly
available. This exemption is subject to a public interest test. In this
instance we believe that the public interest in maintaining the exemption,
and ensuring that any concerns held by any person are raised for our
consideration, outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Section 41 of the FOIA - Information provided in confidence. This applies
to information obtained by a public authority from any other person, the
disclosure of which would constitute an actionable breach of confidence.
We believe that this is reasonable to complainants to expect the details
of their complaints to be confidential until such time as they are placed
in the public domain, with the consent of the complainant, at a public
fitness to practise hearing. This exemption is absolute, which means that
it is not subject to a public interest test.
Finally, in reply to your email sent 11 August 2010, I confirm the
individuals ultimately responsible for the appointment of Penny Mellor to
the Child Protection Working Group were Niall Dickson, Chief Executive of
the GMC and Professor Sir Peter Rubin, Chair of the GMC.
You have the right of appeal against the refusal aspects of this response.
If you wish to appeal, please set out your ground in writing and send to
Julian Graves, Information Access Manager, at the address below, or email
[
email address]
You also have the right of appeal to the Information Commissioner, the
independent regulator of the FOIA. If necessary, Mr Graves will provide
the relevant contact details.
Yours sincerely
Janet Mauldridge
Information Access Team Administrator
0161 923 6324
