Subscribe to Search results

The chairman of the Scottish Haemophilia/HIV Litigation Group wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland to convey the Group's dismay that the Government had agreed in principle to proposals to settle the HIV litigation. He pointed out there were clear differences between the litigation in Scotland and England.

Published on:

Richard Henderson (Solicitor for the Scottish Office) wrote to George Tucker warning of a "political problem" if timescales for HIV settlement discussions in Scotland were the same as expected for England.

Published on:

George Tucker sent a memo to ministers in which he conveyed the concern that the terms of settlement as advanced in England and Wales did not have regard to the situation of the Scottish claimants.

Published on:

George Tucker recalled in his witness statement that despite the lack of consultation with the Scottish Office regarding proposals to settle the HIV litigation, the approach at SHHD was to cooperate with the Department of Health.

Published on:

Ian Lang wrote to William Waldegrave (Secretary of State for Health) requesting some flexibility for the Scotland position with regard to proposals to settle the HIV litigation.

Published on:

HIV compensation claims in Scotland were eventually settled, on terms similar, although not identical, to those in England and Wales.

Published on:

William Waldegrave announced that the "special provision" already made for people with haemophilia infected with HIV would be extended to those infected with HIV as a result of blood transfusion or tissue transfer in the UK.

Published on:

Dr Archibald McIntyre, Principal Medical Officer within the SHHD, recorded the Government's position on extending the ex-gratia scheme, namely, there was no intention to extend the scheme to other groups.

Published on:

Derek Bearhop, assistant private secretary to Michael Forsyth, wrote to George Tucker requesting consideration be given to the extension of the ex-gratia scheme to those infected with the HIV virus through blood transfusion.

Published on:

George Tucker's reply to Derek Bearhop's memo of 29 January 1990 stated people with haemophilia differed from recipients of blood transfusions. A handwritten note on document records Michael Forsyth's view that the arguments set out in the reply "do not stand up".

Published on:

Derek Bearhop replied to George Tucker's memo of 6 February 1990 setting out Michael Forsyth's view on the arguments made that people with haemophilia differed from recipients of blood transfusions infected with HIV.

Published on:

David Binnie's memo to PS/Secretary of State records Michael Forsyth's concern that compensation did not apply to other groups infected with HIV through blood products.

Published on:

J & A Hastie Solicitors wrote to William Waldegrave regarding payments for patients infected with HIV through transfusion.

Published on:

J & A Hastie Solicitors wrote to Virginia Bottomley, Minister for Health, with regard to payments for patients infected with HIV through transfusion.

Published on:

Richard Henderson, Solicitor's Office, wrote to Mr Panton regarding the Department of Health's reasoning in relation to the differences between those with haemophilia and those infected through transfusion.

Published on:

The Observer and Sunday Telegraph published articles which repudiated the Department of Health's claimed distinction between people with haemophilia and people without haemophilia.

Published on:

Richard Henderson, Solicitor's Office, advised that the SHHD should move away from the contrasting of whole blood victims with victims with haemophilia.

Published on:

Christine Dora told the Inquiry the report prepared following the Scottish Executive investigation was largely finalised by this date.

Published on:

Christine Dora felt that no compensation should be awarded unless harm had been done.

Published on:

Christine Dora sought advice from Dr Keel regarding the submission by SNBTS and a number of clinical matters.

Published on: