3 Mar 2014

Not very informative.PHE

Dear Professor Peckham
Re: Fluoridation in Hampshire
Thank you for your email of 3 February 2014 in which you asked a number of
questions about water fluoridation in Hampshire.
Your email has been handled as a request for information under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and in accordance with Regulation 5(1) I can confirm that Public Health England (PHE) does hold some of the information requested. I have set out your questions below and addressed each in turn.
1. A copy of the legal advice received by PHE.
Legal advice received in connection with this matter is excepted information in accordance with Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIRs and legal privilege.
2. The grounds upon which PHE believes that a scheme exists in accordance with section 37 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and what specific agreement is in place that constitutes a contract with Southern Water as described by the Act. This is not a valid request for information under EIR as it does not ask for information held.
3. The exact details of the scheme that exists including:
(a) Details of the postcodes covered and whether this differs from the original
scheme consulted on by SCSHA in 2008 In accordance with regulation 12(4)(a) I can confirm that PHE does not hold this information. The areas covered were described in the public consultation
documentation produced by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) in 2008 and PHE does not hold the specific postcodes concerned.
(b) Copies of the technical report/reports undertaken by Atkins during 2012/13.
(c) The capital cost of the proposed scheme
(d) The revenue costs of the proposed scheme
(e) The numbers of children who will be covered by the scheme
In accordance with Regulation 12(4)(d) this information is excepted information as it relates to unfinished documents. The feasibility study for fluoridating the water supply in Southampton and South West Hampshire, which was prepared for South Central SHA, is incomplete and subject to being finalised in due course. Until a final version has been agreed with Southern Water, PHE is unable to confirm the details requested.
4. Copies of any correspondence between Southern water and PHE since April
2013. In accordance with Regulation 12(5)(e) this information is excepted information as it relates to the confidentiality of commercial information. We regret therefore that we are unable to honour your request for the information referred to in your email under the exceptions to disclosure permitted by the
provisions of the EIR, as referred to above.


rcannard said...

Just imagine if a doctor was this uninformative towards your health...Would you not want a different doctor

rcannard said...

Gill Davies Consultant at The Dental Observatory
Specialist in Dental Public Health at Public Health England the very person pushing the Dental Milk scheme in Manchester who's work from 1990-1994 was fully funded by Colgate & Palmolive...http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/gill-davies/31/822/b31 They all have there fingers in the money trough...

CllrChris said...

1. The legal advice having legal privilege is no surprise. Nor the lack of any suggestion of this advice supporting this "scheme".

2. Whereas these grounds may not be a request for information under EIR they can (and should) still be given under a FOI request. However the answer will no doubt come back that the grounds have yet to be established.

The contract with Southern Water does not yet exist. Are they claiming it does exist?

3. Interesting that they claim not to have the information on the consultation. The consultation is of course a legal requirement. So does that means they can't describe or define the area that was consulted to be fluoridated, nor do they possess the consultation papers. How does that work then??