3 Inquiries

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would be grateful if you could answer the following:

1.Why the 3 Inquiries were set up under section 2 of the NHS Act
1977 rather than section 84 of the NHS Act 1977? As you will be
aware, Inquiries constituted under s2 do not have powers of
compulsion, but can write to ask that the Secretary of State use
his power to compel witnesses etc.

2. Was the reason to limit the scope of the Inquiries to local NHS
procedures (and thus prevent examination of other agencies such as
the GMC)?

3.If so, why did the DH want to limit the scope of the 3 Inquiries
in this way?

4. Why did the Secretary of State create the 3 Inquiries to share a
Secretariat, legal team and budget (thus pooling resources), yet
fail to take the opportunity to create a benchmark for Health
Inquiries?

5. Why did the Secretary of State decide not to use the 3 Inquiries
to create a benchmark by which to assess patient complaints
overall?

6. Why was the Secretary of State not interested in whether
information from the 3 Inquiries was connected either within or
across organisations?

7. Why were the Inquiries not tasked with assessing culpability?

8. If Inquiries are to be seen as thorough or robust, how can they
be if they do not determine what happened in each alleged incident?

Yours faithfully,

Ling Woo

Dear Sir or Madam,

This is a poor excuse for not responding to an FOI Request. I am of
course referring to the Ayling Inquiry, the Kerr-Haslam Inquiry and
the Richard Neale Inquiry which were known by parliament and
referred to in the Inquiries' Report themselves as 'The 3
Inquiries' because (as I said in my request) they shared a legal
team, budget, secretariat, Terms of Reference etc. From that
information, it is difficult to understand how you could fail to
identify the Inquiries in question. I trust you are not attempting
to use my response today as "clarification" to extend the FOI
(hard) time limit for another 20 working days?

It is totally unacceptable that you have taken this length of time
to pettily ask which Inquiries I am referring to and I shall
therefore seek an internal review if you do not respond to my
initial request within the statutory time limit.

Please refer any correspondence to Amanda Bennett.

Yours sincerely,

Amanda Bennett

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would appreciate the Department treating this as an FOI request
because all of the information I seek should be in published form,
such as the Inquiry Reports themselves, press releases, appointment
documents etc. I would also appreciate someone who has actual
knowledge of the 3 Inquiries addressing my questions, because you
have failed to answer my questions correctly.

Firstly, the Ayling Inquiry was granted powers of compulsion under
s84 of the NHS Act, it says so in the Inquiry Report and also in
the Select Committee on Administration's (into budgets for recent
notable Inquiries) minutes of evidence.

Secondly, you state 'With regard to your issue over the pooling of
resources, the three Inquiries did not share a secretariat or legal
team, although some members of it were common to all three
Inquiries.' How can you say this when each of the Inquiry Reports
state that they had the same Secretariat, Solicitor, Deputy
Solicitor and Commissioning Manager for Experts? In fact, it would
be fairer to merely point out that they employed their own Counsel.
Have you actually read any of the Inquiry Reports?!!! If you had,
then you would realise that you have made an error.

Can I bring to your attention s.1.13 on page 9 of the Ayling
Inquiry Report which reads: 'Pauline Fox was appointed as Secretary
to the 3 Inquiries and in October 2001 she established a
secretariat to serve THOSE Inquiries. She left the 3 Inquiries in
December 2002 to take up another appointment. Colin
Phillips was appointed to replace Pauline Fox and he took up post
in March 2003. John Miller was appointed Assistant Secretary to the
Inquiry.Michael Fitzgerald was appointed Solicitor to the 3
Inquiries;
subsequently he was assisted by Duncan Henderson who was appointed
Deputy Solicitor to the 3 Inquiries...
Dr Ruth Chadwick was appointed as Commissioning
Manager (Experts) to the 3 Inquiries.'

On page 2 of the Foreword, The Kerr-Haslam Inquiry Report reads:
'The Secretariat was led by Colin Phillips, supported by his team
of John Miller, Kypros Menicou [etc.]....Dr Ruth Chadwick ensured
that the team of Experts..Michael Fitzgerald and Duncan Henderson
got through a huge amount of work that sadly has become the lot of
solicitors to Inquiries.'

The Neale Inquiry Report reads:

'Michael Fitzgerald and Duncan Henderson conducted a fair but
deeply penetrating investigation of the evidence...The Secretariat
Team was also
of the highest calibre. Led initially by Pauline Fox ably supported
by Deputy Secretary Kypros Menicou, the Secretariat was well
established when I was
appointed in September 2002. Kypros then led the Secretariat during
difficult
months and ensured the smooth running of the oral hearings, which
took place
between early summer and September 2003. I was fortunate to have
Colin
Philips appointed as replacement Secretary...The Inquiry was also
assisted by Dr Ruth Chadwick'

Thirdly, when I talk of "culpability", I mean of the criminal
culpability (i.e. guilty verdict) of the Defendants, Ayling, Kerr
and Haslam.

I haven't bothered to respond to the rest of your so-called
response to my request because it is patently clear that you do not
have the necessary knowledge of the subject matter required to
answer my questions. I would therefore appreciate you passing on my
request to a more knowledgeable colleague.

Yours sincerely,

Amanda Bennett

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of
Health's handling of my FOI request '3 Inquiries'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3_...

Yours sincerely,

Amanda Bennett