[NAME REMOVED]
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS
SPECIAL DELIVERY
Tuesday, 15 July 2014
Dear Ms Holligan
Public Information on Carbon Monoxide
Introduction:
Further to our correspondences dated 31/10/2012, 24/1/2013, 8/2/2013 and 16/10/13; please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you which has been due entirely to our campaigning activities.
I would ask you to note that this letter is being sent to you and the Cabinet Office jointly by the following Organisations:
1. HolidayTravelWatch;
2. CO-Gas Safety;
3. The Katie Haines Trust, and
4. Gareth Hughes CO+ Campaigner.
In any response you give, you should address this to the HolidayTravelWatch address at the top of this letter.
YOUR RESPONSE:
We will not comment extensively on your letter of 20 November 2013, except to say that it offers a complete avoidance of the substantial questions posed in the original letter from HolidayTravelWatch of 31/10/2012!
We have noted you comment about the Energy Bill as it passed through Parliament; a simple enquiry would have revealed that the signatories to this letter were instrumental in drafting and placing before MP’s and Members of the House of Lords substantial amendments to the Bill which dealt with the issue of Carbon Monoxide. We have noted the political resistance to our said amendments and will consider how best to move these matters forward.
We note also your description of what PIF’s are; you should accept that the audience you are speaking with were already well informed!
We note also that you were going to speak with the attendee of the 15 October meeting, but note that you have failed to recognise that no-one from the cabinet Office attended; a fact stated in the HolidayTravelWatch letter of 16 October 2013.
You refer to the DCLG, however, some of us have noted from conversations elsewhere that all such decisions are ultimately taken by the Cabinet Office as a consequence of changes made in 2010.
QUESTIONS THAT REQUIRE DETAILED ANSWERS:
The signatories to this letter have noted and followed the correspondence trail between the Cabinet Office and HolidayTravelWatch since 31 October 2012.
We have all considered the points previously raised and consider that it is important that the Cabinet Office now provides a full response to the points of 31 October 2012 along with providing a Ministerial meeting to discuss these issues directly with our group.
It is clear that the government’s own policy, created in 2010, abandoned the former COI and created a structure that was intended to create ‘rich’ partnerships which clearly go beyond the old public/private sector divide (we have noted your observations on the public/private divide in your letter of 20 November 2013).
Therefore, we repeat the questions posed by HolidayTravelWatch on 31 October 2012. These questions are best presented by repeating the summary that HolidayTravelWatch offered to you on 16 October 2013:
“As you will note in my letter of 31/10/2012, I wrote to the Minister (and OFCOM) concerning the issues following the demise of the COI and the recommendations of Mr Tee.
It is clear that you have responsibility for Public Information Films following that demise (whatever about circulating responsibility to other government departments). This was further evidenced by the comments contained in the ‘PIF’ meeting notes at Westminster, which stated:
“The CO-Be Alarmed campaign run by Energy UK could be used as an example and foundation of co-operation, and the Cabinet Office Shared Communications Service have indicated that they will support a co-ordinated campaign”.
Therefore, rather than providing a copy of my letter of 31/10/2012, I will simply repeat that you should consider the points I raise in each section and respond accordingly. I would then suggest that the questions raised at the end of that letter, which stem from the Tee enquiry, are considered and responded to accordingly, namely:
1. “Since the incorporation of the COI into the Cabinet Office, what steps have been taken to:
a. Develop ‘rich’ partnerships with those engaged within the Carbon Monoxide debate?
b. Develop a ‘common good’ strategy, for the benefit of Carbon Monoxide education with media enterprises?
c. Develop the principle that partnership, the common good and government create effective communication on the dangers of Carbon Monoxide?
2. In relation to the findings of Mr Tee, what steps have been taken to:
a. Develop a strategy around the ‘civil society’ or ‘big society’ to create or bring together the symbiotic partnerships that exist within the Carbon Monoxide debate?
b. Develop a strategy to bring together, for the ‘common good’, media enterprises and those engaged within the Carbon Monoxide debate?
c. Develop a ‘Common Good Communications Council’ (CGCC) to ‘generate donated and media space for public interest and community campaigns’?
d. Develop a separate governance structure for the CGCC?
e. Could you also advise of the membership structure of the CGCC; are the members of any such Council members of the Carbon Monoxide Charities or Consumer Organisations?
f. Could you advise how often the CGCC meet and if the minutes of their meetings are publicly available, if not, does this not contradict your view in June 2011 that such matters should be ‘transparent’?
g. In the event that the CGCC has not been created, could you advise what has been created in its place and reference your answer against points 2 (c), (d), (e) & (f) above?
3. What active role exists or has been taken by the Minister for Civil Society, Mr Nick Hurd MP (or his successor), to create and promote the opportunity for public communication on the dangers of Carbon Monoxide?
4. In considering this issue, have you or the relevant Minister for PIF’s, or Mr Hurd, considered the issue of Carbon Monoxide as an important public message and in doing so, what liaison exists with the Department for Health, Business Innovation & Skills, the APPCOG and the various Charities and Consumer organisations engaged in this debate?
5. In the operation of any consideration or relevant liaisons, what conclusions or strategy has been formed on the issue of public education of Carbon Monoxide dangers?
6. In the event that no such consideration has been made or strategy formed, would you or the relevant Minister be prepared to meet with the Charities and Consumer Organisations with a view to create a roadmap on developing a public communication strategy to warn of the dangers of Carbon Monoxide?”
CONCLUSION:
We take the view, that despite the obvious differences in our respective Organisations, we are united in our quest to see that PIF’s are not only considered, but developed on a range of platforms to advise on toxins in fuel, whether that is within a domestic, commercial or holiday setting.
We sincerely hope that you and the Cabinet Office will now provide the detailed responses we require to our reasonable requests.
We would be grateful if you could kindly acknowledge receipt of this correspondence and in any event, to provide a full response within 21 days.
We also hope that a meeting can be arranged between our grouping and a Cabinet Office Minister with responsibility for this area as soon as possible.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours Sincerely,
Frank BrehanyConsumer Director
HolidayTravelWatch
/ Stephanie Trotter OBE
President
Co Gas Safety
Gareth Hughes
CO+ Campaigner
/ Gordon Samuel
Trustee – Katies Haines Memorial Trust