DWP The Legal Group Correspondence

Ms Isabel Letwin, Acting Director General, DWP The Legal Group

Departmental Secretariat, 4th Floor, Caxton House, 6-12 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NA

7 December 2009

Dear Ms Letwin

Ref: Use of the term "customer" by the DWP and Atos Healthcare

I am concerned at the misuse of the term "customer" by the DWP and Atos Healthcare. If you refer to the Welfare Reform Act and the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare, a "customer", in respect of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), is a defined term and has a specific legal meaning. I believe there are instances where the term "customer" has been misused by the DWP and Atos Healthcare and in context are misrepresentations and potentially misleading. Usually in these instances the term "claimant" should have been used and in certain contexts "patient claimant".

The state has a statutory duty of care to patients and claimants. The commonly held view is that the term "customer" implies subject to Contract Law. There is no commonly held view that a patient or a claimant is a customer. I respectfully point out there is an obligation on Government to provide clear and fair advice.

As a particular example, I would like to draw your attention to the Atos Healthcare booklet "Caring about customer service" subtitled "comments, complaints and suggestions". This describes the initial stages of a legal process that may eventually lead to a judicial tribunal and an appeal in the High Court. I would argue that it is misleading to use the term "customer" in this document. In legal terms the "customer" is the DWP, the "supplier" is Atos Healthcare and the "claimant" has entitlements which are protected by the state by statute, regulation and case law.

Documents such as the one referred to above should either be rewritten so that they are correct in law and so use the term "claimant" or should have a glossary which lists the redefinitions by Atos Healthcare of the legal definitions.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would like the relevant extracts from the copy of the minutes of the meetings where the DWP and Atos Healthcare agreed that a "claimant" should be referred to as a "customer". In particular I am interested in the justifications made in support of this change.

As background to my concerns, I draw your attention to my memorandum submitted to the recent Parliamentary Inquiry and my experience published on my website "http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html". This has links to the Parliament website.

I look forward to hearing from you and confirmation that you will take action to rectify this matter. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Department for Work and Pensions
Commercial Directorate

Our address       Medical Services Contract
                  Management Team
                  Room 306
                  North Fylde Central Office
                  Norcross Blackpool
                  FY5 3TA
Our phone number  01253 611552
Our fax number    01253 333807
Email: Michelle.Munro@DWP.gsi.gov.uk

Date:    9 February 2010
Our Ref: FOI 1209-2565

Dear Mr B...,

Use of the term "customer" by the DWP and Atos Healthcare

You wrote to Isabet Letwin on 7 December about the use of the term Customer by the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) & Atos Healthcare, and the legality of using this term in the contract between DWP & Atos.

You also made a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. I have been asked to reply and I apologise for the delay in doing so.

For the purposes of the Medical Services Contract the terms customer and claimant are used to differentiate between Atos Healthcare's customer, DWP and the DWP customer. However, as an agent of DWP, Atos Healthcare are expected to refer to "claimants" as customers in their correspondence and operational dealings with those individuals.

You specifically asked for

"relevant extracts from the copy of the minutes of the meetings where the DWP and Atos Healthcare agreed that a 'claimant' should be referred to as a customer".

You state that you are particularly interested in the justifications made in support of this change.

Following an extensive search of the paper and electronic records in this office, which includes the Atos Healthcare contract management team, and after discussions with colleagues in the Department's Communications Directorate, the information you requested is not held.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Michelle Munro

Freedom of lnformation Officer

Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act

If you are not happy with this response you may request an internal review by e-mailing freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk or by writing to DWP, Central FoI Team, 5th Floor The Adelphi, 1-11, John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT. Any review request should be submitted within two months of the date of this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF www.ico.gov.uk

Ms Isabel Letwin, Acting Director General, DWP The Legal Group 
Departmental Secretariat, 4th Floor, Caxton House 
6-12 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NA 

10 March 2010 

Dear Ms Letwin

Ref: Breaches of the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare

I would like you to review the attached letters dated 22 February 2010; to Mr G Hampshire, Convenor to the Independent Tier, Atos Healthcare; to Ms RB..., Luton BDC, Jobcentre Plus; to Ms C..., Team Leader, Customer Relations, Atos Healthcare; and to the GMC (dated 3 March 2010). I have not received a response to the DWP or Atos letters. The GMC letter is being progressed. Please note I raised a new complaint and I have not received acknowledgment from Atos of the complaint. This is a new breach of the Contract between the DWP and Atos.

Can you provide me with the legal justification that supports the refusal of Atos to use the services of the Independent Case Examiner as recommended by the National Audit Office?

The "Atos" Independent Tier did not consider the multiple breaches of the Contract between the DWP and Atos. I have documented these http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoscontract.html#breaches. I was not allowed to provide evidence. The evidence of the Atos doctor Dr Bruecker, who implicitly confirmed that Atos provided unsound medical advice to the DWP Decision Maker, was not considered. This appears to breach the Human Rights Act 1998 as it relates to the rights of the individual in respect of justice.

Can you tell me who is responsible for the management of the Contract between the DWP and Atos? Schedule 16, Common Management Procedures (Clause 8.1) agrees that the Agreement should be managed. Who audits that this is done? I am concerned that there should be no undue influence by Atos on DWP personnel. Can you explain why no action has been taken over my serious complaint of assault and injury by Atos personnel? Can you explain why the "Approval" has not yet been removed by the DWP from the individuals complained of?

Can you confirm that Atos has refunded the DWP for the unsound medical advice they provided to the DWP? Can you tell me when the DWP Decision Maker will be able to make a decision based on sound medical advice in line with that outlined by Atos doctor Dr Bruecker?

Can you investigate if Atos, in particular Mr Brian Pepper, has obstructed justice in that Atos provided information to the Minister that the ESA information was reviewed by a qualified HCP prior to deciding a face to face interview was necessary? The Atos Independent Tier states this was not the case. In addition Mr Pepper was in breach of Contract in that he refused to take immediate action on the serious complaint.

As background to my concerns, I draw your attention to my memorandum submitted to the recent Parliamentary Inquiry and my experience in full published on my website "http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html". This has links to the Parliament website, extracts of the Contract, the unsound medical report and all correspondence (desensitised) including the results of the "Atos" Independent Tier.

I look forward to hearing from you and confirmation that you will take action to rectify this matter. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Ms Isabel Letwin, Acting Director General, DWP The Legal Group 
Departmental Secretariat, 4th Floor, Caxton House 
6-12 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NA 

11 March 2010 

Dear Ms Letwin

Ref: Use of the term "customer" by the DWP and Atos Healthcare

Further to my letter of the 7 December 2009 and following receipt of the information that you requested on my behalf under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000, I would like you to consider and see if there is sufficient cause for you to take action.

1. The Parliamentary Inquiry has reported. Evidence and the report uses the term "Claimant".

2. The "Atos" Independent Tier has reported. In the part reviewing the medical aspects the term "Claimant" is used. In the part reviewing the administrative aspects the term "Customer" and "Client" is used. The report states "The wording in Atos Healthcare literature is worrying and I think we can all accept that there is no more confusing word than 'customer'".

The FOI response included the following.

• For the purposes of the Medical Services Contract the terms customer and claimant are used to differentiate between Atos Healthcare's customer, DWP and the DWP customer. However, as an agent of DWP, Atos Healthcare are expected to refer to "claimants" as customers in their correspondence and operational dealings with those individuals.

The FOI response did not provide any information regarding "relevant extracts from the copy of the minutes of the meetings where the DWP and Atos Healthcare agreed that a 'claimant' should be referred to as a customer". This implies there is no reasoned argument to support the use of the misleading word "customer".

The meanings of "customer" and "shopper" and "purchaser" are very similar. They imply an optional purchase subject to the Sales of Goods Act. They never imply a statutory legal entitlement where a claim is required. I stress this point as I would like you to consider the translations provided by the DWP and Atos of English "customer" related literature and forms. Languages such as French and German are more precise and I expect their translations would not be able to use "shopper". The information would be nonsense in these languages. I expect the correct translation for "claimant" is used. This discriminates against those who have English as their language of choice.

Is it Government policy and DWP policy to provide clearer more easily understood literature for those whose first language is not English? I suggest this is discrimination and may be in conflict with both UK equality legislation and European equality legislation. Put another way, why is the UK Government and the DWP and Atos making it easier for people who do not speak or write English to claim their entitlement and making it harder for those whose first language is English?

Finally I understood there is an ongoing commitment by the Government to "Plain English" and making information easier to understand.

I look forward to hearing from you and confirmation that you will take action to rectify this matter. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Fw: Breaches of the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare

Please can you once again forward for action to the senior executive in the DWP The Legal Group.

I have not had a response from Ms Isabel Letwin updating me with progress.

By now I would have expected, at the very least, a letter acknowledging that the serious matters I have raised are being addressed and in that letter some indication when resolution might be due.

Thank you

From:Cantrell Martin LEGAL GROUP DWP-DH COMMERCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT (MARTIN.CANTRELL@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK)

Date: 29 April 2010 16:59

Subject: Your letter to Isabel Letwin dated 10th March

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your email, with accompanying letter, of the 10th April.

I acknowledge receipt. I am sorry that you have not yet received a substantive reply

The matters have been referred to Mr Murphy of the Medical Services Contract Management Team. [Contact telephone number 01253 611 568]. Your letter is receiving attention. I expect that you will soon receive a substantive reply.

Yours sincerely

Martin Cantrell, DWP Legal Group, 1-11 John Adam Street, LONDON

Tel: 0207 962 8770

    To:      ministers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Cc:      enquiries@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: Progress on outstanding legal matters
    

Please can you forward to Ms Gill Aitken - Director General, Legal Group.

I am still seeking progress on my letter sent to Ms Isabel Letwin dated 10 March 2010. I received an email 30 April from a Mr Martin Cantrell who told me to expect a reply from Mr Murphy of the Medical Services Contract Management Team. I have neither received a reply from Ms Letwin nor from Mr Murphy. On the 27 May I followed up with an email enquiring about progress. I did not receive a reply.

I have since received a letter on 28 May from Mr James Fay, Freedom of Information Officer and a letter from Ms RB..., Luton BDC neither of which addressed the matters I raised. I attach copies of my replies to their letters neither of which has been acknowledged.

Please can you review this matter, ensure action is taken including the legal action requested and write to me to explain why a terminally ill patient receives such a service from the DWP.

All correspondence is published on my website http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html .

Thank you

    To:      freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: FOI Request for list of DWP Approved Atos Health Care Professionals
    

Dear Sir,

Please can you provide me, under the Freedom of Information Act, the latest complete list of the Department for Work and Pensions approved Atos Healthcare Health Care Professionals (HCP). For each HCP who is registered with the General Medical Council (GMC), I would like the name and the GMC reference number. For each HCP who is registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), I would like the name and the NMC Practitioner PIN. In addition if other information such as the date of approval and or location where the HCP works is available, I would like this additional information to be supplied.

For clarification the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare includes the following:-

========
"Approved"
means the written recognition by the Chief Medical Advisor, on behalf of the Secretary 
of State, that an individual is satisfactorily trained, and has shown to have achieved 
the required standard to become engaged in the provision of medical or paramedical 
Services and is dependant on the required standards being achieved for each Service area
 
2.   MEDICAL TRAINING FOR NEWLY RECRUITED AND HEALTH CARE PROFESSSIONALS

2.5  The CONTRACTOR shall ensure that Health Care Professional giving advice and conducting
     examinations shall be Approved by the AUTHORITY acting on behalf of the Secretary of
     State. Approval will be dependent on individual Health Care Professional completing, to the
     CONTRACTOR's satisfaction, a course of training and appraisal in the relevant benefit area.

2.6  The CONTRACTOR shall ensure that all of its Health Care Professional providing Services to
     the AUTHORITY are accredited in accordance with the requirement to retain registration with
     the relevant licensing organisation.
========

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you

Yours faithfully

    To:      freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: FW: FOI Request for list of DWP Approved Atos Health Care Professionals
    Date:    11 October 2011 16:54
    

Dear Sir,

I sent the email request as below on the 12 August 2011. On the same day I received the automated acknowledgement that the request had been received. I have not received any further communication about this request. Please can you progress this matter and explain why you have failed to respond within the 20 days allowed. Due to my medical condition I have not been able to chase up before now though I believe the requester is not required to progress chase FOI requests.

If I do not hear from you in a timely manner I will refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

    To:      casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: Complaint to the ICO
    Date:    19 October 2011 15:40
    

Dear Sir,

I created a request on the 12 August 2011 and received the automated receipt response the same day. I asked for progress on the 11 October 2011 and received the automated receipt response the same day. To date the DWP have ignored my request.

The DWP Chief Medical Officer is mandated to keep the approved list of doctors and nurses in compliance with the Contract between the DWP and Atos Origin. It should be trivial to obtain this information and publish it on the DWP FOI requests web site.

I have completed the ICO complaints form as attached and I have attached the email correspondence.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Department for Work and Pensions   Commercial Directorate

                   Our Address     Commercial Management of
                                   Medical Services
                                   North Fylde Central Office
                                   Norcross
                                   Block 3 Room 306
                                   Blackpool
                                   FY5 3TA
                  Our phone number   01253 611537
                  E-mail:
                  DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK

                          Date: 19 October 2011
                          Our Ref: FOI 2336-2367
    

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your freedom of Information request dated 12 August that was sent to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Adelphi and forwarded for me to respond to in my role as DWP Commercial Management of Medical Services Freedom of Information Officer.

Firstly may I take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in responding to your request for information.

You asked to be provided with

1. the latest complete list of the DWP's approved Atos Healthcare Health Care
   Professionals (HCP).
2. the General Medical Council (GMC) reference number for those registered
   with the GMC,
3. the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) Practitioner PIN for those
   registered with the NMC.
And if available
4. the date of approval of the HCP
5. and the location where the HCP works

In reply to Q 1 as of 31 August 2011 Atos Healthcare has 847.24 (full time equivalent) Healthcare Professionals (HCP) undertaking medical assessments.

Further to the response given to Q 1 and also in reply to Q 2 we cannot supply the information relating to the list of all HCPs employed by Atos Healthcare, or the GMC reference numbers of these individuals. This information cannot be disclosed in accordance with Section 38 (1) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 which provides an exemption from disclosing information if such disclosure would, or would be likely, to put the physical or mental health or the safety of any individual at risk or greater risk.

It is unfortunately the case that a minority of DWP customers have decided to target HCPs employed by Atos Healthcare individually with harassment and threats of violence, with the stated intent to target all HCPs working for Atos Healthcare. DWP therefore consider that to release a full list would effectively provide that minority with a 'target' list to continue their harassment and in doing so DWP would be failing in their health and safety obligations to the HCPs.

We recognise that there is a strong public interest in our customers knowing the name and GMC reference number for the HCP who is assessing them, as it is only right that people know and can confirm that have been seen by a suitably qualified HCP. As such we will continue to provide this information on an individual basis to people undergoing an assessment unless information exists that the requester may pose a threat either directly through taking action or indirectly through enabling the minority to target HCPs.

However to release a full list under FOI we would have to accept that this list would be publicly available to that minority who have a stated intent to target HCPs. It would never be in the public interest to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual and it is important that the emotional and psychological well being of staff is protected. I am therefore satisfied that in considering the potential risks to HCPs we cannot see a wider public interest reason exists which would override our obligations to protect the health and safety of the HCPs and so the public interest in maintaining the Section 38 exemption in this instance outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

In response to Q 3 we cannot supply any information relating to an individual's NMC Practitioner PlN as this information which is held by Atos Healthcare, constitutes that person's personal data. This information cannot be disclosed in accordance with Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as disclosure would breach that person's right to privacy under the Data Protection Act 1998. In applying this exemption the Department has balanced the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosing the information and consider there is no overarching public interest argument in favour of releasing this information,

In answer to Q 4 all HCPs must be approved by the Chief Medical Adviser to the DWP and separate approval is required for each benefit area in which the HCP is involved. Approval is dependent on successful completion of all stages of their training process and ongoing demonstration that the work being carried out meets a satisfactory standard.

We cannot supply any further information requested in these questions retating to the approval dates for each HCP employed by Atos Healthcare, this is because it is estimated that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the appropriate limit of £600. The appropriate limit has been specified in regulations and for central Government it is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information. Under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act the Department is not obliged to comply with your request, however if you were to make a new request for a narrower category of information, then it may be possible that we could comply with that request within the appropriate limit, although I cannot guarantee that this will be the case. for example, you could refine your request to limit your request to the HCPs who undertake medical assessments at a specific or a small number of Medical Assessment Centres (MAC).

In reply to Q 5 each MAC has a pool of HCPs who are trained to carry out medical assessments on a variety of benefits.

Each HCP has an agreed number of days on which they will conduct assessments. In addition, they also have agreed days of the week on which they work, and MACs, in which they will work. The type of assessment that the HCP is asked to carry out depends upon the needs of the business, i.e. the volumes of the different benefit types that are awaiting assessment and the age of the files.

If there is a business need at a specific MAC is for a HCP who conducts assessments in a specific benefit then he/she may be re-allocated to a different MAC from the MAC where they usually work.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information Officer, Commercial Management of Medical Services

Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act

If you are not happy with this response you may request an internal review by e-mailing freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk. or by writing to DWP, Central FOI Team, 5th Floor The Adelphi, 1-11, John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT. Any review request should be submitted within two months of the date of this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF www.ico.gov.uk

    To:      freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: Fw: DWP and Atos Periodic Reports Surveys
    Date:    9 November 2011 09:53
    

Dear Sir,

I may have mistakenly emailed to the wrong address the email below. I have not received an email acknowledgement neither automated nor manual. Please could you progress and forward to the DWP organisational unit that can comply with my request. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Mr B...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Mr B... 
To: DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 12:30 PM
Subject: DWP and Atos Periodic Reports Surveys

Dear Sir,

Please can you provide me, under the Freedom of Information Act, copies of information that relates to the Employment and Support Allowance administered by the DWP as defined in the numbered list below. Ideally the information should be published on the DWP website but if this is not possible it should be emailed to me or supplied as a printed copy.

I refer you to the Contract between The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Atos Origin IT Services UK Limited, Medical Services Agreement, Clauses Final Version 15 March 2005.

1.) The annual reports for October 2011, October 2010 and October 2009 as defined in "Schedule 5 Service Levels, 5 Annual Review, paragraph 5.2". "5.2 For the purposes of this annual review the CONTRACTOR shall submit an annual report by 31 October of each year summarising performance against each of the Service Levels set out in Appendix 1 to this Schedule 5." I expect these are already published on the DWP website so all I would need is the website references.

2.) The surveys from the most recent twelve (12) months as defined in "Schedule 4 Section 4.1 Part 1, Common Business Requirements, 7 Claimant Satisfaction Surveys". "7.1 The CONTRACTOR shall undertake monthly surveys to gauge Claimants' perception of the service they receive." I expect these are already published on the DWP website so all I would need is the website references.

3.) A list of the periodic reports and the periods that each report covers that Atos creates for the DWP as defined in the Contract. Contract reference "Schedule 4 Section 4.1 Part 2, Medical Requirements,". "5 Medical Quality Assurance, 5.1 Systems for recording and reporting information relating to recruitment, training and monitoring, 5.1.1 The CONTRACTOR shall maintain databases that collect and report information in relation to recruitment, training, monitoring, Approval and revocation of Approval."

4.) A list of the assessment software as referred in the Contract. Contract reference first section pages 20 and 21 of 76 covers intellectual property rights, 4.9 Contractor Software, 4.9.1 Ownership of all Intellectual Property Rights in the Contractor Software shall remain with the Contractor..., 4.9.2 The Contractor hereby grants to the Authority a non-exclusive, royalty free, non-transferable and irrevocable licence to Use the Contractor Software for the purposed of receiving the Services during the term of this Agreement.

5.) For the software referred to in 4. the companies or individuals that have a part or whole interest in the Intellectual Property Rights that are associated with such software. This should include all companies or individuals that Atos obtains rights from for use of this software.

To clarify 4.) and 5.) the medical examination (assessment) specific software that is referred to in clauses 4.7 Authority Software, 4.8 Authority Third Party Software, 4.9 Contractor Software and 4.10 Contractor Third Party Software.

I look forward to your acknowledgement and response within the prescribed time allowed. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

    From:    casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: ICO Response 14/11/11[Ref. FS50421466]
    Date:    14 November 2011 10:59
    

Dear Mr B...

Case Reference Number FS50421466

Your information request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Thank you for your correspondence dated in which you complain about the DWP's failure to respond to your information request.

In cases such as this the Commissioner does not consider that serving a formal decision notice would serve any strong public interest. However, I have written to the public authority to provide them with a copy of your original request, reminding it of its responsibilities and asking it to respond to you within 10 working days of receiving our letter.

Even though the Commissioner does not intend to issue a formal notice in this case, your concerns have been taken seriously. Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the Information Commissioner.

If the DWP responds and refuses to release the information you have asked for and you are dissatisfied, you may, after exhausting their internal complaints procedure, complain to us again.

This case has now been closed with the delayed response element showing as 'withdrawn' on our records. If you do not receive a response within 10 working days or are dissatisfied after having exhausted the internal review process mentioned above and would like us to look into the matter, please contact us quoting the reference number on this letter.

Yours sincerely,

..., Lead Case Officer

    To:      freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
    Subject: FOI 2336-2367 Request for internal review
    Date:    16 November 2011 09:34
    

Dear Sir,

I would like to request an internal review of the response dated 19 October 2011, which I received 27 October 2011, to my FOI request reference FOI 2336-2367. I received an apology not an explanation for the delay. I would appreciate an explanation.

I appreciate the assistance of the Information Commissioner's Office in obtaining this response as the DWP failed to respond either to my original request made 12 August 2011 or my later request for progress.

I note your assertion that there are potential risks in revealing a full list of the names of Atos doctors with their GMC reference number and a full list of the names of Atos nurses with their PIN number. I suggest the police are responsible for assessing if there is a threat from an individual or from a criminal organisation. I suggest you forward a copy of this letter to the police officer responsible for the investigation. You could consider the police's advice if the police support my suggestions that I feel would help to defuse the situation.

Notwithstanding, most professionals, including doctors and nurses, are happy to publish their credentials so that the organisations that employ these professionals can demonstrate that their employees are competent and are qualified. My professional status together with my full contact details are available for all to see. As a professional I accept the rewards and the risks. Threats are an occupational hazard. By being in the public eye is an additional check on my competency and will reduce my risk. Secrecy breeds suspicion.

Few in this day and age would visit a hospital without reviewing the credentials of the person that they are due to meet. Organisations that claim to employ professionals, especially in healthcare, and refuse to reveal their credentials naturally fall under suspicion. I suggest, in my experience, any potential risks are reduced if the list is published and so is subject to independent analysis and review. I further suggest that if a brief summary of the length of service and experience is included, this would do much to address the widely held negative perception of Atos. Keywords of "DWP" or "Atos" in a search engine returns scores of allegations that Atos are not using qualified HCPs. Some, like in my case, have been substantiated by the DWP and Atos.

It does not help that the HCP who carried out the assessment did not give their name and did not display their credentials in the assessment room. In my case, as the person who took my assessment had difficulty with spoken English, this was an additional warning light to me that all was not as it was claimed to be. I am happy for all to review my case to see why secrecy is so dangerous and how Atos put my life in danger.

The Government stresses the importance of transparency, openness and debate as the medium of improvements.

I believe the public interest in this instance outweighs the Section 38 exemption. In particular I believe the following points should be considered:

1. Every patient, including those aggrieved or those with malice intent, can obtain the information on request. Clearly, as is common in every organisation where healthcare professionals work, certain patients may need to be dealt with by social care or the police.

2. No location information is provided and given your comments, I accept this should not be published.

3. The Department of Health is not renewing their ASCC framework agreement with Atos.

4. Atos withdrew, after three years of a ten year contract, for NHS GP services, for, it is believed, quality issues.

5. Atos claim on their website to employ 1700+ HCPs which does not agree with the 847.24 figure that you provided me. This lower figure does not seem credible given the number of assessments that the DWP publish as taking place. Atos in a recent annual report boasts that it obtains the highest margin from the DWP.

6. The DWP have agreed that they do not audit Atos as Hilary Brierley Deputy Head of CMMS confirmed "...However, I can confirm that the Department has not exercised its contractual right to access for the purposes of auditing Atos Healthcare's compliance with its contractual obligations....".

7. The Daily Telegraph published the DWP supplied figures that 94 percent of new DLA claims last year were approved without the need for a face to face assessment. Given points 5 and 6 above, a reasonable person might conclude that Atos were perhaps not giving quality and rigour priority in favour of throughput targets. As you are aware the original DWP and Atos contract was valued at £80m per year but in 2009/2010 the DWP paid £150.8m (DWP top-100-commercial-suppliers.pdf). Less qualified staff, nearly double the costs and the DWP fails to audit. Atos, as all commercial organisations do (in a monopoly market), must put the needs of Atos shareholders first.

8. Audits of medical quality are outside the remit of the DWP. Other medical governing bodies feel that as the process is an insurance assessment not an examination it is outside their remit.

9. Atos appear to be following the the McDonalds' Hamburger University approach by, presumably funding Derby University, to agree to accredit the Atos training module for nurses as a minor part of a degree course. If you recall the Unum funding of Prof Mansel Aylward in Cardiff University, who when working for the DWP was the driving force behind the "what they can do" approach that has been widely discredited. In the US Unum has been fined millions of dollars in settlement of running "disability discrimination factories". Unum and Atos were key members in how the "what they can do" approach was implemented in the UK You should further recall that a previous Chair of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Work and Pensions, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, is listed in the House of Lords Register of Interests (2002) as the Chairman of the Unum Customer Advisory Panel. The results of the "what they can do" approach are a discredit to the DWP as measured by the high level of claimant success both before appeal, when the DWP concedes prior to tribunal, and as a result of appeal rulings.

10. In my case, Atos appears to have misled the DWP who in turn misled the then Secretary of State.

In summary an unreliable company such as Atos is not subject to DWP audit. Both parties can only proved that they are in compliance with the Contract between the DWP and Atos if there is full disclosure of relevant information. For the reasons specifed above, the publication of the list requested is in the wider public interest. Independent researchers can verify that both the DWP and Atos are complying in full with the Contract. Patients can independently check the credentials of those involved.

As an aside, it would help if the DWP published the medical conditions that mean a face to face assessment is not necessary. It would help for the DWP to publish the fact that, under Government instruction, the assessment has been changed in 2008 to favour those with more serious conditions and proposed Statutory changes will mean fewer medical conditions will be eligible. This means those currently eligible may not be so in future assessments. In the main people do not realise this is happening.

Transparency and openness would help defuse the situation and help rebuild trust in the DWP and Atos. I hope and believe a medical assessment carried out by a patient's Atos doctor or the patient's GP would produce the same result. I hope my case was an exception. If all interested parties work together then matters will improve. If secrecy continues the mistrust will deepen.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Department for Work and Pensions                Commercial Directorate

                              Our address       Commercial Management of
                                                Medical Services
                                                Block 3. Room 306.
                                                Norcross Government
                                                Buildings. Norcross Lane,
                                                Thornton, Lancashire
                                                FY5 3TA

                              Our phone number  01253 611537
                              Website           www.dwp.gov.uk
                              Email:
                              DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK

                              Date: 21 November 2011
                              Our Ref: CMMS 3887

Dear Mr B...

This is an acknowledgment to inform you that your complaint to the Information Commissioner relating to the delay in responding to your Freedom of Information request that was dated 12 August has been forwarded by the Information Commissioner for this team to respond to.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you.

Yours sincerely

Aidan Roylance, Commercial Management of Medical Services

Department for Work and Pensions                Commercial Directorate

                              Our address       Commercial Management of
                                                Medical Services
                                                Block 3. Room 306.
                                                Norcross Government
                                                Buildings. Norcross Lane,
                                                Thornton, Lancashire
                                                FY5 3TA

                              Our phone number  01253 611537
                              Website           www.dwp.gov.uk
                              Email:
                              DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK

                              Date: 28 November 2011
                              Our Ref: CMMS 3887

Dear Mr B...

You recently contacted the Information Commissioner and advised them that you had not received a reply to your Freedom of Information request dated 12 August 2011.

I can confirm that we wrote to you with our response on 21 October 2011 and I apologise again for the delay in doing so.

I enclose a copy of that earlier response for your convenience. I am also copying this to the Information Commissioner's Office for completeness.

If you have any further queries, you can call me on 01253 611537.

Yours sincerely

Aidan Roylance, Commercial Management of Medical Services

Department for Work and Pensions                Commercial Directorate

                              Our address       Commercial Management of
                                                Medical Services
                                                Block 3. Room 306.
                                                Norcross Government
                                                Buildings. Norcross Lane,
                                                Thornton, Lancashire
                                                FY5 3TA

                              Our phone number  01253 611537
                              Website           www.dwp.gov.uk
                              Email:
                              DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK

                              Date: 5 December 2011
                              Our Ref: FOI 2551-3451

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 7 November that you sent to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Commercial Management of Medical Services (CMMS), and is being responded to by the DWP CMMS Freedom of Information Officer.

You asked for in Qs 1, 4 & 5:-

1.) The annual reports for October 2011, October 2010 and October 2009 as defined in "Schedule 5 Service Levels, 5 Annual Review, paragraph 5.2". "5.2 for the purposes of this annual review the CONTRACTOR shall submit an annual report by 31 October of each year summarising performance against each of the Service Levels set out in Appendix 1 to this Schedule 5." I expect these are already published on the DWP website so all I would need is the website references.

4.) A list of the assessment software as referred in the Contract. Contract reference first section pages 20 and 21 of 76 covers intellectual property rights, 4.9 Contractor Software, 4.9.1 Ownership of all Intellectual Property Rights in the Contractor Software shall remain with the Contractor..., 4.9.2 The Contractor hereby grants to the Authority a non-exclusive, royalty free, non-transferable and irrevocable licence to Use the Contractor Software for the purposed of receiving the Services during the term of this Agreement.

5.) for the software referred to in 4. the companies or individuals that have a part or whole interest in the Intellectual Property Rights that are associated with such software. This should include all companies or individuals that Atos obtains rights from for use of this software.

To clarify 4 and 5 the medical examination (assessment) specific software that is referred to in clauses 4.7 Authority Software, 4.8 Authority Third Party Software, 4.9 Contractor Software and 4.10 Contractor Third Party Software.

Unfortunately, I am unable to proceed with your request without clarification of some of the information you wish to receive. To help me do so, I would like to know in relation to

I am sorry but in relation to Q 1 could you please provide a copy of the para 5.2 you hold as the current Schedule 5 does not contain a paragraph 5.2.

In response to Qs 4 & 5 I am unable to proceed with your request without clarification of the information you wish to receive. To help me do so, I would like to know which part of the contract you are referring to as I am unable to identity the reference to "first section" pages 20 and 21 of 76.

Please note that if I do not receive appropriate clarification of your information requirements within three months from the date of this letter, then I will consider the remaining request closed.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

James Fay, Freedom of Information Officer

    To:      DWP.MEDICALSERVICESCORRESPONDENCE@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK
    Subject: Re: DWP and Atos Periodic Reports Surveys (FOI 2551-3451)
    Date:    07 December 2011 16:43
    

Dear Sir,

Your Ref: FOI 2551-3451

Regarding your letter dated 5 December 2011 from Mr James Fay, FOI Officer.

As background I refer you my FOI request dated 10 November 2009 ref FOI 1118-2180 following which I received an extensive extract of the Contract between the DWP and Atos. I believe this Contract is still applicable. I attach images of the pages to assist in clarifying the information I would like to receive:

For Question 1, I attach image s5-5-5-2.JPG.

For Question 4 and 5, I attach images of pages 20 (p20.JPG), 21 (p21.JPG )and 23 (p23.JPG). If you refer to 4.12 Deposited Software, the software I refer to is the software that is deposited in escrow with the NCC under 4.12.1 The CONTRACTOR shall".

I apologise if my terms are confusing. My understanding is that the Agreement comprises Clauses and Schedules. In addition each Schedule contains Clauses. The Agreement Clauses comprise pages 10 to 71. Sometimes I use the term paragraph instead of clause.

Please let me know if you need any further assistance.

Thank you

Yours faithfully

Date: 12 December 2011

Our Ref: FOI 2551-3451

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 7 November that you sent to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Commercial Management of Medical Services (CMMS), which I am responding to, in my role as the DWP CMMS Freedom of lnformation Officer. Thank you for providing clarification in relation to questions 4 & 5.

In your request you asked, in reference to the Medical Services Contract between DWP and Atos Healthcare:-

1.   Reference to a website containing the annual reports which are referred to
     within Schedule 5 Annual Review paragraph 5.2.

2.   to be provided with the Customer Satisfaction survey results for the last 12
     calendar months, and advised where these reports are published within
     DWP websites;

3.   a list of the periodic reports and the periods that each report covers that
     Atos healthcare provides for DWP in relation to the Contract reference
     Schedule 4 Section 4.1 Part 2 Medical Requirements; 5 Medical Quality
     Assurance, and section 5.1 systems for recording and reporting information
     relating to recruitment.

4.   A list of the assessment software as referred to in the Contract covering
     intellectual property rights;

5.   which companies or individuals that have a part or whole interest in the
     Intellectual Property Rights that are associated with such software, which is
     the specific software that is used in the medical assessments

In answer to Q 1 Schedule 5 has been reviewed since 2005, and no longer contains paragraph 5.2, this has been superseded by Schedule 16 Paragraph 2.2.3 Performance Reviews, and specifically 2.2.3.1 which states "Peformance reviews shall be held on a monthly basis between the AUTHORITY and the CONTRACTOR for the purposes of reviewing performance against Service Levels set out in Schedule 5 to this Agreement and conformance by the CONTRACTOR to all other standards and policies set out elsewhere in this Agreement."

In reply to Q 2 please find enclosed the customer satisfaction surveys for the past 12 month, commencing November 2010: these are not published on any DWP website.

In answer to Q 3 and in accordance with Section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, the Department is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request it has previously responded to. My letter as the CMMS freedom of Information Officer dated 19 October (FOI 2336-2367) refers.

In response to Qs 4 & 5 the computer software used by the contractor in the compilation of medical assessments is Logic Integrated Medical Assessment (LiMA).

LiMA provides approved HCPs with a system of data entry that minimises typing. This is known as 'assisted text control' and allows information to be quickly and easily added to a report. 'Standard phrases' consist of sentences that users can customise by altering variables. Their use is never mandated and the option of 'free text' (where the user types into the report) is always available. Therefore, the report that is produced should always be an accurate reflection of the assessment.

To provide an example the phrase 'The condition started several months ago'
is constructed by the LiMA system as follows:
The user is presented with the Standard phrase - The condition started
The system will them prompt the user to select the appropriate option i.e. a few,
several, many or Since age (x) or from birth.
If the user has selected few, several, many the system will then prompt the user
to select the appropriate option i.e. days, weeks, months, years.

There are an enormous number of customisable phrases in LiMA which are regutarly updated, these are an integral part of the IT system and no separate list is available. However, as outlined above, there are no constraints placed on the approved HCP as to what information is recorded or how.

The system utilizes evidence based medical protocols which contain up to date medical knowledge relating to medical assessment technique and in the assessment of the effects of medical conditions. Emphasis is always placed on the differing circumstances of each individual customer and HCPs are required to justify their medical opinion contained on the medical report. This has contributed to an improvement in the quality and consistency of medical advice provided by approved HCPs. It also solves any potential problem of legibility of the medical report.

The questions and options built into the LiMA programme are exactly the same as those in the clerical form IB85 Incapacity for Work Medical Report form. This form was designed by the DWP.

The assisted text phrases that may be used to construct the medical history were drawn from many sources including the Incapacity Benefit Handbook, medical text books, examples of high quality Personal Capability Assessment report and discussions with experienced approved Healthcare Professionals (HCPs). They have been quality assured by panels of experienced HCP's and deemed appropriate for constructing good quality relevant clinical and functional histories and were agreed in consultation with the DWP Health and Benefits Division (formerly Corporate Medical Group).

The clinical examination results are structured according to the findings of evidence based medical research carried out by Atos Healthcare to determine the functional consequences of specific clinical signs. In other words the HCPs are expected to cary out a functional assessment of the affected system(s), not necessarily to carry out a full diagnostic clinical examination. This was agreed in consultation with the DWP Health and Benefits Division (formerly Corporate Medical Group).

LiMA software only functions as an interactive process during an assessment; it has no independent function and is designed to run only on Atos Healthcare networked based PCs not standalone PCs. Furthermore we have decided not to release specific technical data relating to LiMA software for the following reasons.

Reasons for claiming exemption

We consider the information exempt from disclosure under section 43 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the "Act"). This is because, in our opinion, the disclosure of the information under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of both DWP and a third party licensee of DWP.

In this regard, we can tell you that DWP holds copyright, the intellectual property rights and has licensed a third party to use, customise, distribute, incorporate, market, maintain, support, sell and sub-license LiMA (and other software) in return for payment of a royalty to DWP. In that licence, DWP confirms that it will not, in effect, allow any other party similar rights.

The LiMA software program is not only integral to the conduct of DWP business; also represents a significant commercial interest to the DWP. Therefore we decline to provide the software, any technical or other information that would enable full or partial reproduction of the LiMA system.

While we acknowledge that, if supplied to you, the information would continue to be protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which would prohibit certain commercial re-use of the information by you) we have, after full consideration, reached the conclusion that the likelihood of prejudice to our commercial interests, and those of our licensee, remains. The information has inherent commercial value in terms of the business methods it reflects and the concepts it employs, neither of which is adequately protected by the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

To place this information in the public domain would undermine the basis of the arrangement reached by DWP with its licensee, as it would threaten the uniqueness of the information upon which assessments of commercial risk and return have been made and in relation to which commercial positions have been adopted and acted upon by the parties. We also consider that release of the information would be likely to place DWP at a significant disadvantage in seeking to secure similar licensing arrangements with third parties in the future.

In applying the exemption under section 43 (2) of the Act, we have considered whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. We have concluded that it does. We have reached this conclusion because, in our view, the public interest in understanding how the LiMA system works, and in being assured that the LiMA system properly reflects and supports the identification and assessment of benefit entitlements, can be met by a non-technical description of the system, and the role it is intended to play in the decision making process. We believe that you have this information.

We are also mindful of the fact that any public concerns about the integrity of LiMA can be met and fully addressed through due process of the benefit system itself, which contains rights of review and appeal covering both the DWP's decision on entitlement to benefit, and the process by which that decision is arrived at. Conversely, we do not believe that the public interest would be served by creating an environment, which adversely impacts the public sector's ability to obtain a secondary benefit from its investment in information systems.

Were the public sector to release, under the Act, commercially valuable information such as that inherent in the LiMA system, the public sector would find it difficult to engage the expertise of commercial licensees (an expertise the public sector does not have) in deriving latent value from its information systems, to the detriment of the general taxpayer who would be deprived of the royalty revenue which might otherwise be realisable. For these reasons, we believe that it is right to maintain the exemption in relation to the specific information you seek.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Commercial Management of Medical Services, Freedom of Information Officer

Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act

If you are not happy with this response you may request an internal review by e-mailing freedom-of-information-request@dwo.gsi.gov.uk. or by writing to DWP, Central FOI Team, 5th Floor, The Adelphi, 1-11, John Adman Street, London WC2N 6HT.Any review request should be submitted within two months of the date of this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire Sx9 5AF www.ico.gov.uk

Date: 13 December 2011

Our Ref: FOI 2557-3356

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request that was received by Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Adelphi on 9 November 2011 and forwarded on for me to respond to in my role as DWP Commercial Management of Medical Services Freedom of Information Officer.

You asked for:- copies of information that relates to the Employment and Support Allowance administered by the DWP as defined below, and in reference to the Medical Services Contract.

1.  The annual reports for October 2011, October 2010 and October 2009 as
    defined in "Schedule 5 Service Levels, 5 Annual Review, paragraph 5.2".

2.  The surveys from the most recent twelve (12) months as defined in
    "Schedule 4 Section 4.1 Part 1, Common Business Requirements, 7
    Claimant Satisfaction Surveys".

3.  A list of the periodic reports and the periods that each report covers that
    Atos creates for the DWP as defined in the Contract. Contract reference
    "Schedule 4 Section 4.1 Part 2, Medical Requirements,". and "5 Medical
    Quality Assurance, 5.1 Systems for recording and reporting information
    relating to recruitment, training and monitoring.

4.  A list of the assessment software as referred in the Contract. Contract
    reference first section pages 20 and 21 of 76 covers intellectual property
    rights, 4.9 Contractor Software, 4.9.1 Ownership of all Intellectual Property
    Rights in the Contractor Software shall remain with the Contractor.

5.  For the software referred to in 4. the companies or individuals that have a
    part or whole interest in the Intellectual Property Rights that are associated
    with such software. This should include all companies or individuals that
    Atos obtains rights from for use of this software.

To clarify 4.) and 5.) the medical examination (assessment) specific software that is referred to in clauses 4.7 Authority Software, 4.8 Authority Third Party Software, 4.9 Contractor Software and 4.10 Contractor Third Party Software.

In accordance with Section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, the Department is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request it has previously responded to. My letter as the Freedom of Information Officer dated * December 2011 (FOI 2551-3451) refers.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

CMMS freedom of Information Officer

Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act

If you are not happy with this response you may request an internal review by e-mailing freedom-of-information-request@dwo.gsi.gov.uk. or by writing to DWP, Central FOI Team, 5th Floor, The Adelphi, 1-11, John Adman Street, London WC2N 6HT.Any review request should be submitted within two months of the date of this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF www.ico.gov.uk

Date: 14 December 2011

Our Ref: FOI 2581-IR 278

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 16 November 2011 that was received by DWP Adelphi and forwarded for me to respond to in my role as Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Commercial Management of Medical Services Internal Reviewing Officer. You asked for:-

An explanation for the delay in responding to FOI 2336-2367, a copy of your letter to be forwarded to the police and the amount of HCP's that Atos employ. You also provided suggestions regarding the publication of HCP details and commented on the audit of Atos.

As Reviewing Officer, I have read your letter and accepted this as a request for an Internal Review so that I can check that the information sent to you clearly and accurately answered your request. I have therefore conducted a full investigation into your original request and the information supplied to you. I have also reviewed any decisions to withhold information and in doing so I have fully considered the public interest in disclosure.

You stated that you had received an apology but not an explanation for the delay in responding to FOI 2336-2367. I can inform you that your Freedom of Information request dated 12 August was sent to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Adelphi and forwarded on that day to the DWP Commercial Management of Medical Services Freedom of Information Officer.

A request was made to Atos Healthcare on 7 September for the information you wanted, the reason for the delay in requesting this information was due to a high volume of FOI requests received at that time and a lack of availability of staff to process the requests. The response to this request was received from Atos Healthcare on 20 September which was then followed by a period of consultation with DWP Health and Well Being Division and DWP Legal Group; these initial discussions were concluded on 30 September.

At this stage CMMS should have informed you by letter that there was a need to extend the 20 working day time limit for issuing a response. It was necessary to extend the time limit in this case, because the information requested had to be considered under one of the exemptions to which the public interest test applies. The extra time was needed in order to make a determination as to the public interest.

An initial draft to your request was not completed until 14 October. Once this draft was completed the response was forwarded through the required sign-off procedures, and the letter was finally approved and posted to you on 21 October.

I note your suggestion that a copy of your letter be provided to the police, however DWP do not need to obtain advice from the Police, over the release of information, and a lack of instructions does not remove our obligation to the HCPs to protect them as a group from the few individuals who have at times sought out Atos Healthcare employees, and either verbally abused them, or threatened physical violence against them. Sections 38 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act would not allow DWP to disclose this information to the Police. The FOIA is in place to demonstrate that the government is open and transparent; however the Act also states there are instances where information must not be released. The Department has a duty of care towards the HCPs to ensure that their data is handled appropriately and to issue a list of the names of all HCP's, together with their General Medical Council (GMC) Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) numbers and length of service and experience would not be appropriate. The release of this information would breach the Data Protection Act (DPA) which is legislation designed to protect the interests of individuals. In coming to this decision I have considered the balance between adherence to the DPA and the public interest in releasing this information. Release of this information would be unlawful and is not therefore in the public interest to disclose.

You advised that the HCP who carried out your assessment did not give their name and did not display their credentials in the assessment room. Although this was not a subject raised within the original correspondence, I can advise you that HCP's are expected to display their name badge whilst conducting an assessment, unless there is evidence held that the HCP may be at risk, as the claimant being assessed has previously made threats against DWP/Atos Healthcare staff to physically harm or abuse them, which I'm not aware you have. If you wish to raise this issue as a complaint with Atos Healthcare you should write to the National Customer Relations Manager, Atos Healthcare, Block 1, Wing G, Government Buildings, Otley Road, Lawnswood, Leeds, LSl6 sPU.

You have stated that the figure of 847.24 employed HCP's that we provided in the response to FOI 2336-2367 does not agree with the 1700+ that is stated on the Atos Healthcare website. As stated in our previous response, the figure of 847.24 relates to full time equivalents and not actual headcount of HCP's.

With regard to the audit of Atos HCP's, I can confirm that all HCP's employed by Atos Healthcare are subject to regular random quality audit. The audits are carried out by accredited auditors using the Integrated Quality Audit System. HCP's in the DWP Health and Benefits Division (who are based at the same address as the Chief Medical Adviser) regularly validate audit outcomes.

I am therefore satisfied that the original response dated 19 October 2011 was correct, in that the Department decided not to disclose this information in accordance with Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as disclosure would breach that persons right to privacy under the Data Protection Act 1998 and Section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as disclosure of this information could endanger the safety of the individual. I am therefore satisfied now that all the information that DWP are able to supply to you has been supplied.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Aidan Roylance, Internal Reviewing Officer

Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire Sx9 5AF www.ico.gov.uk