Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Dr Anthony Nowlan
Dr Nowlan has provided the Committee with the
following comments in relation to the evidence session held on
26 June.
Questions 195, 217 and elsewhere: Circumstances
of my departure from the Programme
In the light of Mr Granger's answers to questions
195 and 217 in particular, I wish to make the circumstances of
my departure clear.
As described in both my oral and written evidence,
I believe the haste to procure was overriding due diligence over
the healthcare value and achievability of what was being done.
In the first half of 2003 I had made my views known on several
occasions to senior people in the programme, including the Senior
Responsible Owner, Professor Sir John Pattison, and the head of
the Design Authority, Mr Duncan McNeill. It was clear to me that
"dissent" was felt to be ill-advised given Mr Granger's
determination.
Finally, in mid-June 2003, I received a telephone
call from the then Chief Executive of the NHS Information Authority,
Dr Gwyn Thomas. He had received a telephone call from Mr Granger
in which Mr Granger had said I had to go. The reason Mr Granger
gave Dr Thomas was that I was undermining his [Mr Granger's] authority
by going around talking to all those doctors. This was the reason
the secondment was terminated.
I resumed my post at the NHS Information Authority
but all my work was now within the NPfIT. My job had thus ceased
to exist and after due process I was made redundant at the end
of the year.
Question 29: Confidentiality and related issues
At the request of Professor Sir John Pattison
I led a programme of work on confidentiality and related issues
from mid-2002 until my removal from the programme in June 2003
when work was given to Mr A Truscott, a technical consultant from
the firm ASE. I agreed with my former colleagues to oversee for
a few more days the pulling together of the final report and actions
from the major public consultation that I'd led from October 2002
to January 2003. The agreement to publish the report had been
the basis on which many groups had contributed to the consultation.
I sent the report and related documents to Sir John Pattison and
copied to Mr Granger on 28 July 2003. To the best of my knowledge
it has not been properly published to this day.
My one substantive discussion with Mr Granger
on this subject was in late 2002, as the consultation was starting.
He advised me to hire the top barristers in the field to run the
consultation and to deny them to the opposition. I still struggle
to understand who was and is `the opposition'. In Mr Granger's
view they were those who would stop or delay things through Judicial
Review. His model was the opposition of some London Boroughs to
the introduction of the Congestion Charge.
Question 197: Clinicians involvement in OBS
Mr Granger named three clinicians that he claims
I slurred. I have known all of them for several years and I would
be surprised if they see my claims as a slur on their characters.
In the first part of 2003, Dr Bainbridge worked as a consultant
to the Design Authority and had involvement in GP-related work.
Mr Arrowsmith was an employee of the NHS Information Authority
and worked on imaging-related information standards. Dr Bentley
was not working for NPfIT at the time.
I early 2003, I ran an open recruitment to hire
people with clinical and informatics skills to support the clinical
leadership. Mr Arrowsmith and Dr Bentley were two of the successful
candidates. Marlene Winfield was already leading the work with
patient and citizen groups. I had recruited her in 2000. I never
had the chance to direct the team because my secondment was terminated
before we could get going.
Questions 22 and 218: Information provided to
the NAO and the matter of the report being reviewed
I am aware that my name was given to the NAO
in 2004 by Professor Peter Hutton and by William Buckland, both
of whom had been interviewed by the NAO. Mr Buckland was a consultant
who worked for a short time for the then Senior Responsible Owner,
Professor Halligan. Mr Buckland had visited me at my home to ask
about the background and state of the programme. I told him of
my experiences and concerns. I was not contacted at that time
by the NAO.
In mid-2005 I had a conversation with an old
friend who then had occasion to speak with Sir John Bourn in June
2005. At that time the NAO raised the possibility of using me
as a reviewer.
At the request of the NAO I met Mr Shapcott
for lunch in August 2005 and told him of my concerns. He again
asked me if I would act as a reviewer if required, and I agreed.
I was not asked.
| 
