Continuing the discussion from Article on the Mental Health Bill:
Thanks for posting Anselm. I’ve no authority to speak officially for CQC, but as a point of fact there are four mental health lawyers amongst roughly 35 Mental Health Act Reviewers. (There are fewer MHA Reviewers than MHA Commissioners in MHAC days because they are now largely full time posts). Nevertheless I see your article as an important challenge to some of the assumptions behind the Bill. With very best wishes, Mat
How strange. I was told NIL by Ms Bickerstaffe and when I recently asked a senior CQC member he didn’t say that had changed; indeed, three times he didn’t reply. Who are they are where would I find a list of current reviewers? Who is in charge of MHA compliance?
Best wishes
Anselm
It was Chris Dzikiti who didn’t reply three times.
My guess is that someone may have misunderstood the question to be how many people do CQC employ as lawyers to be MHA reviewers… but that is a guess. Of course CQC has in-house lawyers as well who get involved in MHA discussions. I think as employees rather than appointees (another distinction from old times) there isn’t a published list of MHA Reviewers with identifiable background etc. The CQC contact that might be best would be askpolicyandstrategy[at]cqc.org.uk. Cheers!
Mat, is it seriously the case that the CQC – a public Commission – does not publish a list of Reviewers? The MHAC made public who was appointed as Commissioners.
Ah well, technically it was the Secretary of State who appointed Commissioners for the MHAC and as such they were public appointments, so they would have to be listed publicly. I guess it just isn’t the same for employees, even of a public body. There’s no published list of CQC inspectors or other staff either, including MHA Reviewers. I think there’s a legitimate question over which system - public appointment or ordinary employment - is the best, but they are quite different things.
Thanks, Mat, but on any reading that’s untransparent and in my opinion rather asymptomatic of all that is wrong with the CQC at present.
LOL! You don’t understand (tic). 
The Empire is built on ‘secrecy’ - then they chunter on about openness and transparency. This is not just about the CQC - it’s about loads of organisations which serve public functions.
The FOIA is great for giving everybody a sense that they will get information that ought to be publicly known. But… but… but… There is a set of rules that can be applied on a whim to withhold.
Strands of the ancient culture prevail today i.e. ‘You’re not to know - so don’t ask’ is the sort of message (in actions not words).
The CQC is supposed to be quasi-autonomous and accountable to public (among other higher regulatory authority). However in reality - their functioning appears to be that they are a ‘law unto themselves’. Those employed by or allegiant to the CQC will surely disagree with me. Nothing wrong with a disagreement.
Thanks. I’m very much aware of the secrecy culture at the CQC and DHSC. It’s worrying indefensible and hypocritical.