Public interest vs privacy

More than 4,000 people have signed Peter McReynolds' petition on the commissioning of adult ADHD services in Northern Ireland (add yours here, if you've not done it already).

That petition was laid before the Assembly in April 2024 and the Alliance Party MLA received a letter from the Health Minister in July.

Just like McReynolds asks in his post on X, I wondered who those stakeholders are as well (spoiler alert, not many). Having had previous experience with the Department's Press Office, which resulted in a notch more interaction than talking to a wall, I approached getting an answer to this question via FoI. My last interaction with the Press Office resulted in repeated answers of "officials are working on a response" and even then that was when I emailed with things like this "it’s been 32 days since my initial email. Any idea of a timescale for a response to any of the questions?".

One of those queries first went in to the Press Office on May 4th (about what information had been sent to GPs around shared care agreements). I gave up on trying to find that information out through the Press Office and put a Freedom of Information request in on 24th July (if you're trying to count, that's 81 days between my press query and giving up on it answering). I'll get to that information on shared care another day, because Peter's petition goes towards a wider issue - a lack of transparency.

I point all this out as someone who previously worked in the press for nearly 15 years. I was the editor of a newspaper, so I am not a newbie to talking to press offices. The response to my FoI request, however, around Peter's petition (and the Health Minister's response) shocked me a little. The request centered on:

1. Any drafts, emails, notes, telephone recordings in 2023-2024 (albeit covering two health ministers) - these were for the department 'keeping this under review', anything ADHD related in that timeframe and any scoping work on ADHD services
2. What stakeholders they had met with and number of interactions

You'll note from the letter received by McReynolds that Mike Nesbitt said: "My officials are currently considering how best to progress the issue, in discussion with relevant stakeholders".

So that should be the easy part of the response (and 'relevant stakeholders' sounds like it's across a wide range). However, it turns out the Department has only engaged internal stakeholders including Health & Social Care Trust representatives and: "as the policy development process progresses, the Department intends to engage – and have the researchers engage – with a broad range of relevant stakeholders, including community and voluntary groups, those who advocate for people with ADHD and people with lived experience."

So, little to no external engagement so far outside of their own four walls. All sounds positive though about engaging others. Aside from, again, my own experience. I reached out to Mike Nesbitt on June 15th asking if the Minister would be willing to sit down with a small group of local people affected by the lack of ADHD services here... you know, the people with lived experience. The response on July 3rd simply said that "unfortunately, due to other Diary commitments, the Minister is unable to meet at this time".

There wasn't a suggestion to potentially put something in his calendar later in the year. The FoI, which asked questions about the response to the Alliance petition, mostly was the Department deciding to enact section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act, in relation to my request for internal communications.

If you're not up on your FoI lingo, section 25(1)(a) in layman's terms means the Department can withhold information related to the formulation of government policy, with the reasoning for its response, given below.

"While the Department of Health fully recognises that there is a public interest in transparent decision-making in government, this must be balanced against the need for Ministers (and officials) to be able to consider all relevant factors and to discuss them without prejudice with all relevant stakeholders.

"The ability to discuss and progress issues privately without distraction, as potentially caused by premature disclosure of information, is a necessary part of the decision-making process. Taking the factors noted above into account, the Department considers that the public interest is more heavily weighted in favour of maintaining the exemption of some of the documents in this request."

In the interest of fairness, the response to FoI request DOH/2024-0213 included zero documents, so the use of the word "some" might be understating it a little (where's that sarcasm emoji when you need it?).

On one hand, there's a lack of transparency. There is, however, also a harsh reality hanging out in plain sight and it's summed up in the last paragraph in the Health Minister's response to Peter McReynolds:

"That being said, you will be aware of the extremely challenging financial climate in which my Department and HSC services are operating. As such, any decision to commission adult ADHD services in the future will be in the context of budget availability, as well the determined level of demand for services."

Welcome, ADHD, to Squid Game Northern Ireland. You're now player 456.