Department of Health

Wellington House

133 to 155 Waterloo Road

London SE1 8UG

Dear Gary,

At the Programme Board in September, I undertook to write to you about your comments on the analysis of the consultation responses.

I acknowledge that you feel that we have not abided by the Government’s Code of Practice on consultations and I would like to reassure you that our aim was to reflect the code as much as possible in our report. The Code is a guide, not a template. However, we were faced with an unusual consultation - 64 questions, many of which had sub parts, answered by many different respondents - some representing their own personal experiences and some representing large organisations. We had some 10,000 pages of responses. We published a large and complex analysis, over a hundred pages long and we attempted to reflect the views of as many of the respondents as was practicable. To have gone further would have resulted in a very unwieldy document. While much of the analysis was qualitative, it also included some quantitative data in the appendix as well as thematic messages and a specific chapter that dealt with the question of legislation.

The consultation report goes well beyond the type of analysis that the Department usually publishes. We have also published on the DH website all the responses from organisations who responded and had given permission, thereby enabling people to see the full range of organisational responses. Please be reassured that while it wasn’t possible to include all the views of all the non-Government organisations in the summary document, they are all being considered by the review team who will be going back to the original information rather than just looking at the consultation summary when considering specific issues in detail.

You raise the question of legislation and you comment that the report does not differentiate between framework and intervention legislation. You are correct that question 9b did not make this distinction but the subsequent questions in chapter 8 were on specific proposals - questions 9c and d relating to Safeguarding Adult Boards and a duty to cooperate, and questions 9e to 9k relating to additional intervention type powers. The responses to these questions are summarised in sections 8.2 – 8.6 of the report and it quite clearly shows that there were very high percentages in favour of both statutory Boards and a duty to cooperate, whereas the percentages in favour of increased intervention powers were lower. You asked me to confirm that the issue of legislation being placed in a chapter on legislation did not preclude it being ‘a key issue’. I am happy to do this; indeed having a large part of chapter 8 devoted to this issue shows the importance we have given it. Legislation is indeed a key issue and its omission from the “Key Messages” chapter should not be taken as a deliberate intention to downplay its importance.

Underlying many of your concerns appears to be the fear that the government is not taking the question of whether to make boards statutory seriously. I want to reassure you that we are taking this very seriously and are currently working hard to explore the different policy options available. We are very aware that the majority of people consulted thought that boards would be strengthened by a legislative underpinning. We need to explore and understand what the added value of legislation brings. I want there to be no misunderstanding of ministers’ position on this matter, which is that active consideration of the consultation responses on this issue is ongoing and no decisions have yet been taken.

I would also like to apologise that we did not arrange to meet with the programme board prior to the publication of the report. Although the main body of the report had been finalised and quality assured we were liaising between different government departments to agree a final draft for publication that took longer than we anticipated. We believe that the publication of the report will give us an opportunity to move forwards together and I will ensure that we meet regularly with stakeholders to achieve this. I explained to you that my plan was to reconvene a wider group for this purpose. I also want to reflect on the involvement of the Advisory Group as we go forwards. Resolving this will take some time but it will not hold up discussions between officials and ministers to develop the Government’s response to the consultation. My aim is to hold a meeting of the wider group as soon as we can. We will be seeking to set a date next week.

Finally, I understand your desire to have a public commitment on the timeframe in which ministers will act. You may have seen that in an answer to a recent Parliamentary Question, Phil Hope committed to make a statement before the end of the year.

The Government is committed to improving safeguarding, while also noting that a great deal has already been achieved. We have been impressed by the expertise in the field and by how different safeguarding is today in 2009, from how it was in 2000. Much has been achieved and there is much to build on.

I am copying this to the members of the Programme Board.

Kind regards

Richard Campbell

Deputy Director, Dignity and Safety programme