Pain Management Panel and Pain Management Task Force: FOI Review
Information request and response under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002
Information requested
1. Under FOISA, regarding moves in 2022-2023 to set up and continue a “Pain Management Panel” on chronic pain, please send all exchanges of emails, letters and notes, between the Scottish Government with The Lines Between research company, including work briefings, and organisations TLB or Government contacted over this chronic pain panel work and person recruitment.
2. Under FOISA, regarding the “Pain Management Task Force”, which the Scottish Government stated in 2022 “will oversee implementation of the Framework for Pain Management Service Delivery”, please send all exchanges of emails, letters and notes between the Scottish Government and others over recruitment of Task Force members; clarify how many “lived experienced” people will be involved and which persons and organisations have been appointed to the Task Force from 2022 to date.
Response
Further to my letter of 02 May 2023, I have now completed my review of our response to your request of 17 April 2023 under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) regarding your request below:
1. Under FOISA, regarding moves in 2022-2023 to set up and continue a “Pain Management Panel” on chronic pain, please send all exchanges of emails, letters and notes, between the Scottish Government with The Lines Between research company, including work briefings, and
organisations TLB or Government contacted over this chronic pain panel work and person recruitment.
2. Under FOISA, regarding the “Pain Management Task Force”, which the Scottish Government stated in 2022 “will oversee implementation of the Framework for Pain Management Service Delivery”, please send all exchanges of emails, letters and notes between the Scottish
Government and others over recruitment of Task Force members; clarify how many “lived experienced” people will be involved and which persons and organisations have been appointed to the Task Force from 2022 to date.
I have concluded that the request for information was properly handled in that searches were conducted appropriately and that all information within the scope of your request was identified through the searches that were undertaken.
You were provided with all of the information held in respect of emails, letters and notes relating to communications with the Scottish Government and The Lines Between research company, and recruitment of Task Force members. You were also advised that one person had been appointed to represent the views of people with lived experience. You were provided with details of the roles and organisations of the people appointed to the Task Force.
I have considered all of the exemptions applied in responding to your request. In respect of Section 38 (1) (b): the finding of my review is that this exemption was correctly applied to Scottish Government civil servants working in roles at graded below that of the Senior Civil Service. I find that the seniority of the roles that some of the Task Force members have and the specific nature of their responsibilities gives rise to expectations of greater transparency and accountability through release of the names of some of the Task Force members previously withheld. I have considered that the employers of some of the Task Force members are not the Scottish Government and while their role with Scottish Government is below Senior Civil Service level, there is also a public interest in some previously withheld names being released.
The information where Section 38 (1)(b) exemptions were previously applied and my review has concluded should be released to you is as follows:
Helen Moores-Poole AHP Primary Care Advisor, Scottish Government;
Rory MacKenzie, Associate Clinical Director, NHS Centre for Sustainable Delivery;
Nicola Rhind, National Clinical Lead for Chronic Pain;
Martin Dunbar, Pain Third-Sector Network Lead;
Lynn Railston, Public Health Scotland Improvement Lead;
Lars Williams, Pain Medic Network Lead;
Tracy Robertson, Pain AHP Network Lead;
Deborah Steven, Pain Pharmacy Network Lead;
Aline Williams, Pain Service Manager Network Lead;
Jacquelyn Watson, Pain Nurse Network Lead;
Nina Cockton, Pain Psychology Network Lead;
Catherine Labinjoh, Clinical Lead Realistic Medicine
Louise Mcinnes, National Pain Framework Implementation Lead (to October 2022)
Stuart Stephen, National Pain Framework Implementation Lead (from January 2023)
I have attached the information requested with redactions previously applied as Section 38 (1) (b) exemptions removed to reflect the review I have undertaken.
Exemptions in respect of Sections 30 (b) (i) and (ii) were applied to the all of the content of two other documents. The previous response letter indicated that the reasons for applying these exemptions were outlined in an Annex C to the response. My review has found that this explanation was not provided and it should have been. I am sorry that this was not sent to you. I am including a full explanation in this letter of the considerations given in my review of the exemptions now being applied.
The finding of my review is that these documents contain information that you were entitled to receive, though there is information within these to which Sections 30 (b) (i) and (ii) exemptions are applicable. I have attached the information that my review has concluded should have been provided to you, with some information continuing to be withheld under 30(b)(i) and 30(b)(ii).
In applying these exemptions I have considered whether there is a public interest in relation to disclosure of some of the withheld information in respect of the work to establish the Pain Management Task Force. While there is a public interest in the decision-making process to improve governance for this work, this has to be balanced against the context in which the information was provided and the likely effect of disclosure on the work to improve engagement and involvement of people with lived experience of chronic pain. I have considered these competing arguments and decided that there is a public interest in maintaining exemptions as outlined in Sections 30 b(i) and b(ii).
An exemption under section 30(b)(i) of FOISA (free and frank provision of advice) applies to some of the information requested. This exemption applies because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank provision of advice. This exemption recognises the need for officials to have a private space within which to provide free and frank advice to Ministers before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view. Disclosing the content of free and frank advice on the work to deliver improved governance and participation in the work of the Task Force could substantially inhibit the provision of such advice in the future as it relates to the identified need for improvements in engagement of those with lived experience of chronic pain.
This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, I have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption for some of the information requested. I recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing a private space within which officials can provide full and frank advice to Ministers as part of the process of delivering improved governance for this work that is likely to be effective. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, based on the best available advice. Premature disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between Ministers and officials, which in turn will undermine the quality of the implementation of the revised governance process, which would not be in the public interest.
An exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (free and frank exchange of views) applies to some of the information requested. This exemption applies because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. This exemption recognises the need for Ministers and officials to have a private space within which to discuss and explore options before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view. Disclosing the content of free and frank discussions on the case for improved governance supporting the Task Force will substantially inhibit such discussions in the future, particularly because of the identified need to improve how arrangements for the views of those with lived experience of chronic pain are best reflected in the revised governance arrangements.
This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, I have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. I have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption for part of the information requested. We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing Ministers and officials a private space within which to explore and refine the Government’s position on the need for improved governance and participation of those with lived experience of chronic pain. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered. Disclosure of some of the information requested is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issuesbetween Ministers and officials, which in turn will undermine the commitment to improve governance and participation in the work of the Task Force, which would not be in the public interest.
Exemptions in respect of Section 25 (1) were correctly applied and you were provided with these links:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/framework-pain-management-service-delivery-implementationplan/
The exemption applied in respect of Section 27 (1) was correctly applied as at the point of responding to your request there was an expectation that the information requested would be published within 3 months. I have considered whether there was a public interest in disclosing the information to which the Section 27 exemption was applied, in order to enhance enhance scrutiny and improve participation in the work of the Pain Management Task Force. I have also considered the context and need to ensure alignment with the revised governance arrangements for the work of the Task Force and, on balance, have concluded that at the time of your request, there was a public interest in following the revised governance arrangements that informed the plans for publication.
About FOI
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Contact
Please quote the FOI reference
Central Enquiry Unit
Email: ceu@gov.scot
Phone: 0300 244 4000
The Scottish Government
St Andrews House
Regent Road
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback