Home   News   Article

Wick man accuses national agency of 'keeping public in the dark' over Covid numbers


By Alan Hendry

Easier access to your trusted, local news. Subscribe to a digital package and support local news publishing.



Click here to sign up to our free newsletters!
Keith Banks in Wick's riverside car park with the coronavirus testing centre in the background. Picture: Alan Hendry
Keith Banks in Wick's riverside car park with the coronavirus testing centre in the background. Picture: Alan Hendry

A national health agency has been accused by a Caithness man of "keeping the public in the dark" over the rate of Covid-19 infections.

Keith Banks, of Wick, says it is "absurd" that Public Health Scotland (PHS) fails to disclose precise numbers of positive cases within specific geographical areas if they are below a certain level.

PHS describes itself as "the lead national agency for improving and protecting the health and wellbeing of all of Scotland’s people". Its online dashboard is updated each day with the latest available coronavirus figures in Scotland and has a map giving a tally of positive cases in specific "neighbourhoods" within local authority areas.

Seven of these neighbourhoods are in Caithness, with three in Sutherland.

When a neighbourhood has fewer than three positive cases, the number is presented on the dashboard as "0-2" and the seven-day Covid-19 rate is not shown "to help protect patient confidentiality”.

Mr Banks maintains it is "blindingly obvious" that patient confidentiality would not be compromised by stating exact numbers for each neighbourhood, however small they may be, and argues that public institutions have a duty to be transparent.

PHS insists in turn that releasing neighbourhood information involving small numbers would carry a risk that individuals could be identified, and says it believes it has achieved the correct balance.

"I would suggest that PHS has been disingenuous with the public about the Covid-19 statistics," Mr Banks said.

"To begin with PHS decided that if the number of cases in a neighbourhood was between one and four this was shown on the dashboard as fewer than five. From December 2020 PHS changed its guidelines, advising that if a neighbourhood area had fewer than three cases then this would be shown as 0-2.

"PHS acted unilaterally in terms of deciding what was personal data."

Mr Banks felt the agency should have sought advice from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the UK's independent body set up to uphold information rights.

"Instead it went ahead and created its own criteria about what constitutes personal data," he said. "Serious questions need to be asked in terms of who permitted this to happen and for what reason or reasons it was done, ostensibly in terms of what they call protecting patient confidentiality, when it is blindingly obvious that patient confidentiality was never at risk."

Mr Banks added: "Last autumn and winter, I submitted Freedom of Information requests to NHS Highland asking for the precise numbers of Covid-19 cases diagnosed in Caithness, together with the numbers of deaths that were attributed to the virus. The board declined to furnish the recorded information requested because it contended this was personal data and exempt from disclosure because it would compromise patient confidentiality, citing s38(1)(b) and s38(1)(d) of the legislation as legitimate reasons.

"I disagreed, arguing that it was not competent and was nonsensical to rely upon those exemptions, and I appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner. This was upheld and NHS Highland was ordered to release the actual numbers.

"My view was that our public institutions have a duty to be transparent and accountable to the public, and that providing numbers alone cannot be deemed personal data and would in no way pose a risk to patient confidentiality.

"I am always suspicious of secrecy. Uncertainty fuels fear and precludes the public from making informed choices and decisions about their safety and wellbeing.

"Regrettably, the PHS dashboard, which purports to keep the public informed, has instead been suppressing the precise numbers from the public.

"It maintains that, if there are fewer than three cases in any neighbourhood, providing the actual number or numbers for a specific period would be a serious risk to patient confidentiality. The rationale behind this is absurd.

"Why are they keeping the public in the dark?

"Public Health Scotland's argument about risking patient confidentiality being compromised becomes even more ridiculous and bizarre when NHS Highland has furnished those numbers, and another public authority, Highland Council, has provided information to the public about schools and departments, together with the numbers of pupils and teachers involved in outbreaks.

"The public deserves better treatment than this by PHS, particularly when infections caused by the Delta variant are soaring."

In June, the Scottish Information Commissioner ruled that NHS Highland had failed to comply with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act in responding to a request by Mr Banks about total numbers of infections and deaths attributed to Covid-19 in Caithness.

A spokesperson for PHS said: "Public Health Scotland has a legal duty to ensure that it is not possible to identify individuals in our outputs, either directly in the data we release or by using that data in combination with other information.

"Release of neighbourhood information involving small numbers carries a risk that individuals could be identified. We have considered and assessed these risks, taking steps to reduce them, while also balancing the risks with the need to release useful information.

"Our conclusion is that suppression of counts and rates for neighbourhoods with fewer than three cases in a seven-day period is the correct balance in this context. This is consistent with the approach taken by other UK nations in their Covid dashboards and in line with recommendations made by the UK Office for National Statistics.

"Further information on our approach can be found on the Public Health Scotland website.

"Public Health Scotland has robust protocols in place to assess disclosure risks and we are not required to consult the Information Commissioner about the content of our releases."


Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.



This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More