NHS 'Risk Register' Publication To Be Vetoed By Cabinet

Posted: 08/05/2012 17:01

Ministers are to veto the publication of an internal risk assessment of the Government's highly contentious NHS reforms, it was announced today.

The move to defy a ruling by the Information Tribunal that the risk register should be released under the Freedom of Information Act was agreed by the Cabinet this morning.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said he believed in "greater transparency" but that it was also essential to retain "a safe space where officials are able to give ministers full and frank advice in developing policies and programmes".

"Had we not taken this decision, it is highly likely that future sensitive risk registers would turn into anodyne documents, and be worded quite differently with civil servants worrying about how they sound to the public rather than giving ministers frank policy advice," he said in a statement.

The November 2010 risk register for the Health and Social Care Act reforms, which became law in March, was requested by Labour MP John Healey.

Information Commissioner Christopher Graham agreed that the documents should be published and, after an appeal by the Department of Health, the Information Tribunal also ruled for disclosure.

But the Cabinet agreed today that the "ministerial veto" should be used to prevent publication.

Mr Lansley said he was instead publishing a document setting out "key information" from the register but protecting its "language and form".

"This is not a step I have taken lightly. I am a firm believer in greater transparency and this Government and this department have done far more than our predecessors in publishing information about the performance and results of our policies.

"But there also needs to be safe space where officials are able to give ministers full and frank advice in developing policies and programmes.

"The Freedom of Information Act always contemplated such a 'safe space' and I believe effective government requires it. That is why Cabinet has today decided to veto the release of the department's transition risk register."

Mr Lansley said the public had "all the information necessary to understand what we considered the risks to be and how we have acted to mitigate them".

"To continue to be transparent about the risks we considered, and to be equally clear about how we have mitigated those risks, I have also published today a document setting out key information relating to the areas of risks in the original risk register, how we have met those risks head-on and how we will continue to do so," he said.

Mr Healey said the decision was "poor policy and dumb politics", and would "only fuel doubts and distrust" about the reforms.

The veto is used very rarely - the last Labour government vetoed the release of Cabinet minutes relating to the invasion of Iraq.

"This is a desperate act which will backfire badly. It is an admission of defeat on the legal arguments for public release," he said.

"It is totally over the top to place NHS changes on the same footing as preparations for the Iraq war.

"There must be some very big risks in the Government's NHS reorganisation for ministers to override the law with their political veto.

"Ministers have made the announcement in the very last hour of the last day, trying to bury this bad news on the eve of the Queen's Speech.

"The Government has lost twice in law, yet still won't accept that patients and NHS staff have the right to know the risks ministers are running with the biggest-ever NHS reorganisation."

FOLLOW UK POLITICS

Ministers are to veto the publication of an internal risk assessment of the Government's highly contentious NHS reforms, it was announced today. The move to defy a ruling by the Information Tribuna...
Ministers are to veto the publication of an internal risk assessment of the Government's highly contentious NHS reforms, it was announced today. The move to defy a ruling by the Information Tribuna...
Filed by Ned Simons  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 41
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
04:48 PM on 05/09/2012
Disgraceful, high-handed, anti-democratic, right-wing authoritarianism.
No wonder that these Tories love the American hard right Republicans. They are the same.
04:11 PM on 05/09/2012
nothing to hide,WELL SHOW THE POPULATION+++++AFRAID,,,,of course you are,cluck cluck
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mickey Mouse 1
There are no lies or deceit on a chess board.
12:27 PM on 05/09/2012
Can we also have a risk assessment of the implications of the debt that the coalition government inherited from Labour. Every man, woman and child has a right to know how much money they are personally liable for to repay that debt.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pepekitch
09:27 PM on 05/10/2012
Yes and then we can add it to the £150 billion they have spent[tories]more than labour planned,then add the u-turns that have cost,then the extra on welfare they have spent,QE taking money from pension pots.all because they have cut to fast to quick.Now to the article,we all know why they wont show the risk document because it as privatization written all over it.Roll on the general election ,it's not far away now.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mickey Mouse 1
There are no lies or deceit on a chess board.
05:05 PM on 05/11/2012
pepe

We all have to cough up for government debt, whether we like it or not.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
redsquad
Shootin' from the lip
09:54 PM on 05/08/2012
Arrogant, sleezy, lying Tories... "Trust us, we're your betters"... I hope this decision can be appealed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pepekitch
09:29 PM on 05/10/2012
Here here,
09:36 PM on 05/08/2012
Lansley and co have ignored expert medical opinion,have ignored expert legal opinion and the law,have ignored the electorate,have ignored democracy,and there is still nothing to be done.
Nothing can be done.Seems Executive politicians can do whatever they or their paymasters want,and the electorate just have to suck it up.
Not a proper democracy yet,otherwise these abuses could not happen.
To think that consulting the cabinet,who all think the same way-vested if not controlling interests,is enough to legitimise this vetoe,is to show chronically poor judgement and grasp of the realities and yet he can parade this bs as if it and he are plausible.
This is so obviously flawed,and displays a poor opinion of the electorate,that they are that gullible/stupid.
But it indicates an equally obvious flaw in the political system:that this can happen with no democratic recourse,with impunity.That's a major flaw.Scarey.
Things really need to change to fix this huge hole in our democracy,which can attract huge corruption.
It is on the basis of this lack of democratic accountability that the HaSCB has been driven through parliament into law,which ironically lansley and his cronies seem to be able to ignore.
09:08 PM on 05/08/2012
The more they treat us with contempt the more we despise them.
08:52 PM on 05/08/2012
Greater transparency?Then veto the risk assessment.We are being taken for a ride.(So he thinks)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janno000
08:41 PM on 05/08/2012
So he didn't understand why people didn't vote for his party after all. who would have thought it.
08:31 PM on 05/08/2012
Clear and transparent goverment, the words of Cameron last election campaign, is the man ever going to live up to even one of the election promises made.
08:27 PM on 05/08/2012
Surprise they dont want you to know what they are up to. This is privatisation pure and simple the tories backers see a huge profit for themselves at the publics expense. We should be very worried all tory privatisations have been a disaster for the general population, think Gas electricity water care for the elderly. The most discusting was care homes the private equity fund swooped in gorged on the flesh and left the bones behind and for sure the taxpayers will pick up the bill.
photo
casual agent
Advocate for social justice
08:11 PM on 05/08/2012
Our NHS' is in grave danger'...We cannot wait another 3 years for a general election. I hope people will realise this before it's too late?..Please support you're National Health Service' at every opportunity you can.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pepekitch
09:32 PM on 05/10/2012
Well said,The nhs is not safe in their hands,thats another reason why they wont show the risk assessment.
photo
casual agent
Advocate for social justice
10:39 PM on 05/10/2012
Here'Here'..Absolutely'...I think if there is anything that goes seriously wrong with our NHS'..from now on'.."Which I fear it will"..The Tories' have made themselves hostages to fortune'...or should I say Mis-fortune..?
08:03 PM on 05/08/2012
These "Risk registers" are full of "whats the worst that could happen" stuff. I work for the Health Protection Agency and there was one for moving the head offices from one office to another. It really was the most utterly ridiculous load of guff...."What it the crane doesn't turn up....ooooooh we'll have to get another one". Blummin waste of time!
photo
casual agent
Advocate for social justice
08:36 PM on 05/08/2012
So where is the harm in releasing it then?...Has it never crossed you're mind that one consequence can lead to another and another until it is of some consequence..?
08:30 PM on 05/09/2012
Yes my point was supposed to be why not release it, it'll be full of utter nonsense (the worrying thing is that people all over public service are spending time writing these wretched "risk registers" and having meetings to discuss them too!).
10:05 PM on 05/08/2012
If it turned out to be a waste of time then it wasn't a waste of time.
The point is to identify the potential for things to go wrong, identify how bad it would be if they did, give them ownership, develop plans to minimise the risk of them going wrong and plans to handle the fallout if they do.
This NHS risk register probably looks like a string vest which no one wants to own.
photo
casual agent
Advocate for social justice
07:52 PM on 05/08/2012
Labour' should call for an urgent debate over this debacle.This sort of behaviour is not acceptable'..Just goes to prove these Privateers' can't be trusted with our NHS'..Lansley' should be dragged back to explain himself for this anti-democratic act of vandalism....Then they wonder why no one trusts them?..This Risk Register must be published.
07:42 PM on 05/08/2012
For Andrew Lansley to say he believed in "greater transparency" but it was also essential to retain "a safe space where officials are able to give ministers full and frank advice is nonsensical. As a former civil servant his and the government's argument is weak and is a poor reflection on their handling of the reforms. It matters not what party is in goverment the civil service always provide honest advice and where there are risks inherent within the policy they have a duty to point this out no matter how unpopular. If there is something within the risk register which if made public would have shown the reforms to be unpalatable then the goverment is being dishonest. If they truly believed the reforms are necessary then publication should hold no fears to them as with any risk report there is always the argument the risk is worth taking because of the benefits a policy will produce. What is the point in having a Freedom of Information Act if government's ignore rulings as and when they choose. The act contains exemptions which can be used to withold disclosure. Preventing civil servants from providing frank policy advice is not an exemption. What if the High Court ordered disclosure would Andrew Lansley refuse to disclose. Members of the public could then judge whether this or any other government holds itself above the law even in a democracy
09:39 PM on 05/08/2012
What a sensible argument. Ever considered running for office yourself??

Fanned :)
07:26 PM on 05/08/2012
Reminds me of a Roy Orbison song........Running scared.
photo
casual agent
Advocate for social justice
07:54 PM on 05/08/2012
Yes'...That connection is very apt'..It's crossed my mind many times.