Jacky Buchan Team Leader 20 Greenacre Court
Department of Health Lancaster
Richmond House LA1 4LE
79 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2NS 2nd September 2010
Dear Jacky Buchan,
Thank you for your email responding on behalf of Anne Milton who was cc on my letter to my MP Eric Ollerenshaw (Ref DE00000534894).
This letter was not about addiction to over-the-counter medicine as you state and all my correspondence to date has been about prescribed medicine and not OTC medicine.
By your response it is obvious that you have not understood the points I raised in my letter so I will clarify them.
My letter to my MP raised specific concerns about the Department of Health’s complaints procedure, which incidentally I had read before corresponding, along with the MHRA’s complaints procedure as well.
I agree with you that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is independent of both the Department and the Government. However, my point remains that the Department of Health’s complaints procedure excludes any possibility of public concerns regarding drug safety being investigated impartially because the Ombudsman can only investigate the way the Department handles a complaint and not policy issues.
My original criticism was that the benzodiazepine addiction disaster is a result of the Department of Health’s failure to take any action over a period of forty years; this is a policy issue and therefore excluded from the Ombudsman’s remit, who may only investigate process.
Regarding MPs’ correspondence to the Minister on this subject, can you tell me if they answered personally by the Minister, or are they answered by the Department’s Customer Service Centre with the Minister’s name put at the bottom of the letter?
I am aware that the MHRA complaints procedure is independent of the Department, but the MHRA itself is a government agency of the Department of Health and as such is ultimately the Department’s responsibility for my complaints regarding licensing and enforcement decisions.
These ‘closed systems’ are directly responsible for the continuation of the benzodiazepine addiction disaster. Can you explain in the light of these ‘closed systems’ how any public concerns regarding drug safety could ever be investigated impartially?
I note that you say that the Customer Service Centre has provided me with the most accurate information and that the review ‘work is ongoing’ but neither of these are true.
According to a reply to a Freedom of Information request dated the 13th August, Genevieve Lobo for the Department stated that: ‘The additional information about the three items requested cannot be sent at the present time as work on the first (literature) is not yet complete and the second two items (prescribing audit and specialist survey) have only just commenced in the last few weeks.’
This means that when Dora East stated in her letter of the 3rd March 2010 (Ref TO00000485190) that ‘The Department is currently conducting a review……’ in reality no real work had been done.
Dora East also stated in her letter of the 15th April (Ref TO00000499504) ‘I hope it will help if I explain that the review is looking at the following areas:
- prevalence: to help determine the extent and severity of the problem of dependence on prescribed and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs;
- prevention: to assess the effectiveness of clinical governance in this field, including the provision of guidance for prescribers of benzodiazepines and other drugs;
- provision of treatment services: to find out what services are available to support people needing treatment for dependence on these drugs;
- policy leadership: to establish how the Department might improve its communication between interested parties; and
- discrimination against people who may have become disabled as a result of their dependence on medicine.’
Again, according to Genevieve Lobo, no work was underway at the time of writing. Can you please give me an explanation for this?
Also, in her letter of the 10th August Dora East stated that ‘I should firstly explain that the nature of the Department’s work on the subject has not changed. The literature review, the audit of GP prescribing and the audit of services are the three pieces of work that the Minister has agreed, rather than new terms of reference.’
Comparing the new terms of reference with the ones supplied by Dora East this means that three items are no longer part of the review which are: prevention, policy leadership and discrimination. Can you please explain why these three areas have been dropped?
Any question on the subject of involuntary tranquilliser addiction by Members of Parliament, the public or other concerned parties has been deflected by the Department by reference to the review for over a year. Lord Sandwich’s Parliamentary Questions have been blocked by the same untruthful response. Now it has been called to question whether any relevant work has been carried out at all during this period.
I wish to request the following under a Freedom of Information request:
- The number of people who have written to the Department in the last three years regarding benzodiazepine or z drug addiction.
- Copies of any briefings, reports, minutes of meetings or any documents prepared to inform Ministers of the content of these complaints, with personal information redacted.
Thanking you for your help in this matter,
Yours Sincerely
John Perrott