Evidence submitted by Dr Nigel Dudley
The attached e-mail from the Royal Statistical
Society, that I received a few days ago, helps to give context
to why I was using the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to try
to access e-mails and other information relating to the research
work underpinning the outcomes and savings figures in the NAO
report. If the NAO can make a factor of 17 mistake in a calculation
and endeavour to keep quiet this degree of error in relation to
small sums what would it do if it made even larger errors in its
calculations that impacted on how wisely and well the taxpayers'
money was spent? The NHS computer project is, and like other projects
such as the one in Wessex many years ago, going to consume millions/billions
in years to come.
If the Freedom of Information Act is altered
in such a way as to limit requests, make unreasonable charges
for requests, or include time spent by officials and others discussing
whether to find or reveal information so as to legitimately be
able to cost bar a request then this will not be good in a democratic
society where there should be more open government.
We all make errors and in medicine nowadays
these are admitted to patients and relatives at an early stage
so as to help maintain trust and confidence and avert later much
more serious complaints and service failings; the Freedom of Information
Act in its current format without the proposed restrictions should
be an encouragement to organisations and public bodies, including
the NAO, to admit errors at an early stage rather than delay or
obfuscate as when the truth is revealed that can be far more damaging
than early disclosure. Medicine has learned its lessons and has
recognised the potential impact on the public of its less than
acceptable behaviours through cases such as Bristol, Neale, Ledward,
Shipman and others; have other organisations outside medicine
yet learned the lessons?
I hope this addition is helpful for the Committee
and places the earlier communications in context and a clearer
light as to what was attempting to be achieved with the FOIA requests;
the e-mails exchanged between King's and the NAO between December
2005 to the end of February 2006 would have been likely to reveal
crucial information as to who knew what and when about any errors
in the NAO's/King's research modelling work that underpins the
figures in both the NAO and PAC stroke reports. As it was, the
use of a confidentiality clause when I made the request to King's
College, a contract clause that can be utilised by both King's
and the NAO to force me down a lengthy route via the Information
Commissioner in relation to something that needs sorting out now
before PCTs beginning investing in stroke services, prevented
access to important information. Changes in legislation will shift
the balance far to far in favour of those organisations and bodies
wishing not to act openly and the Committee should be greatly
concerned and act in the public interest to limit such a tightening
of the Act.
| 
