Response from AfME re concerns re deadline for draft Terms of Reference comments (or When is a consultation not a consultation?)
If you consider that this draft Terms of Reference is being pushed through by the APPG for agreement without wider consultation with the ME community and without adequate time for proper discussion of the scope and objectives of the proposed inquiry, as a whole, please let the Secretariat know of your concerns.
See also previous postings:
I have received a response from Ms Heather Walker on behalf of AfME to the points raised, earlier today:
Ms Walker advises on behalf of Action for ME:
“The minute of the meeting of 8 October has not been finalised because we are awaiting information from a person present about an aspect of the minute which relates to their contribution to that meeting. I have tried to contact this person a number of times without success, although I know the contact details are correct, so presumably they are away or their M.E. or other issues are taking priority at the moment.
“As the web notice says, the meeting agreed to accept the draft terms of reference in principle subject to minor amendments. The Chair had hoped the terms would be agreed at the meeting but some present said they wanted a little longer to digest and the Chair agreed to this. There was no mention of wider consultation in Dr Shepherd’s informal summary because none was envisaged. The recent web notice was simply intended to formalise the deadline indicated at the meeting.
“I am not sure why you say, “Sir Peter Spencer is reported as having expressed a wish to produce some written amendments in the days following the meeting” as if this somehow has great significance. The Chair has agreed to minor amendments and Peter has a minor amendment.
“The date of the next meeting of the APPG was suggested for December but as ever, it will depend on the availability of a speaker. This had not yet been resolved.”