Subscribe to Search results

Lord Fowler said in his oral evidence that though the Wales and Northern Ireland followed the DHSS Scotland remained "determinedly independent" on several things.

Published on:

According to Lord Fowler's oral evidence Dr Galbraith's letter should have been shared with ministers and that there was a strong case for at least sharing it with Lord Glenarthur as the minister for blood and blood products.

Published on:

Lord Fowler expected that Lord Glenarthur and the CMO would be fully briefed about the results of the meeting, but without being aware of it, a minister could not consider whether they agreed about the decision making or whether they needed to challenge it.

Published on:

Lord Fowler stated that it would not be good practice if the DHSS was largely taking its advice about haemophilia care from one clinician.

Published on:

Sir Donald Acheson described the decision to establish the EAGA being made after he understood that he "should seek expert advice as soon as possible". However, he began work as CMO around October 1983 and EAGA met for the first time in January 1985.

Published on:

Lord Fowler recollected that from 1984, going into 1985, "there was a feeling of impending crisis", and that it was "probably during the early part of 1985 that we became thoroughly engaged in it."

Published on:

Dr Roger Moore told the Inquiry that the concept of 'clinical freedom' was a "major...tenet" which "put a limitation on what the Department could do with clinicians...across all policy areas, clinical freedom was a mantra.

Published on:

Dr Brian McClelland initiated work on an AIDS donor leaflet without SHHD involvement.

Published on:

Dr Brian McClelland stated that the thinking in defining the group as "Homosexual men" was that nobody knew what was meant by "multiple partners." This could have meant any number from two, to a lot higher. The phrase also did not specify the time period.

Published on:

Dr Brian McClelland told the Inquiry that the wording in the press release was quite inconsistent with his own view of the risks and that he thought the wording was "misleading and falsely reassuring."

Published on:

Dr Andrzej Rejman stated that the departments in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland were "smaller than DH by a significant margin, and so the relevant doctors in their departments would have had a much wider role." He argued that because of this, they did somewhat rely upon work done within DH.

Published on:

The Welsh Office was significantly smaller than the DHSS, and the medical officers would have had a much wider role than in the DHSS, instead of having someone with specific responsibility for blood and blood products.

Published on:

Civil servants from Northern Ireland were invited to attend some of the committees and working parties which reported to the DHSS. According to Dr Pickles this could sometimes be as a "regretful late thought".

Published on:

Lord Patten stated "unequivocally" that ministers should have been informed about Dr Galbraith's letter. He also stated that if he had seen it "I think I probably would have
pressed the panic button."

Published on:

Lord Patten stated that ministers were not told of Dr Galbraith's paper, and were not told about the CSM's decision-making, which he found very hard to understand why.

Published on:

The response to recipients of blood that had been exposed to AIDS was to try to talk up what the Government was doing. Lord Patten acknowledged, "Defensive Press Briefing" was "not a nice phrase".

Published on:

Lord Patten observed the DHSS should be "presenting things truthfully", as opposed to "presenting things well."

Published on:

Lord Patten did not understand why it had taken so long or why there was no sense of urgency in producing the leaflet.

Published on:

Lord Patten had no recollection of ever meeting Sir Henry Yellowlees. He did however have interactions with Dr Acheson although there was no system of regular meetings with the CMO.

Published on:

Lord Patten stated that ministerial submissions would be required for a change of policy or significant new spending commitments. He also acknowledged that a concern about media interest or adverse press comment might lead to a matter being brought to the attention of ministers.

Published on: