Subscribe to Search results

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 Clarke confirmed in his oral evidence that his view in November 1984 was that spending of £2 million on blood tests for HTLV-3 was not cost effective. Though he recognised that with hindsight it was "a tragically - an incorrect opinion", he explained "that was when we got just a handful of AIDS cases".

Published on:

Lord Clarke suggested in his evidence to the Inquiry that the best treatment available line would have been a reflection of the fact that more people would be damaged, and the quality of life of people with haemophilia very badly damaged, if they were not provided with the Factor 8.

Published on:

Kenneth Clarke did not fundamentally disagree with what Mr Justice Ognall had said, which in his view were the same principles that had led the Government to provide money to the Macfarlane Trust.

Published on:

In oral evidence, Lord Clarke said everyone had concluded that an ex gratia payment was the best way of handling the matter: there was "a case for using public funds to make some compensation".

Published on:

In his oral evidence to the Inquiry, Lord Clarke said he did not think he knew about the collection of blood from prisoners.

Published on:

in his oral evidence, Lord Clarke said he had no recollection of where the statement that there was no conclusive evidence that AIDS was transmitted by blood products came from and that it was likely prepared by legal representatives.

Published on:

Lord Clarke in his oral evidence said that it was "daft" that he was being asked detailed questions about events of 40 years ago about something that was a tiny proportion of his activities.

Published on:

In his oral evidence, Lord Clarke said that he would reject any conclusion that there was a delay in the introduction of HIV screening.

Published on:

Lord Clarke in his oral evidence criticised the Inquiry as engaging in "historical research... with the elderly survivors, the ones that hadn't died so far, of those who are in the Department at the time, and in meticulous detail, which it's inconceivable that any witness could possibly remember."

Published on:

In response to a question about the line taken that there was no conclusive proof, Lord Clark in his evidence said, "We're not going to go long all day like this, are we? It doesn't -- I mean, doesn't this Inquiry wish to reach a conclusion? I don't know how many years you've been going. Extraordinary."

Published on:

During his evidence to the Inquiry Lord Fowler was asked about the wording in a letter from Baroness Trumpington to an MP in 1986, namely, "Doctors treating haemophiliacs were, we believe, careful in explaining these risks to their patients." He did not know where the wording came from.

Published on:

Lord Norman Fowler explained in his oral evidence to the Inquiry how the case for compensation was "hopeless".

Published on:

In his oral evidence to the Inquiry, Lord Norman Fowler confirmed he knew nothing of any rule or policy regarding the maintenance or destruction of ministerial papers.

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:

In his oral evidence, Lord Clarke said that he did not approve the idea that the central defendants should settle the litigation but thought that once the case had run its course and the expected judgment in favour of the Government had resulted, a substantial payment would then have been made to the Macfarlane Trust.

Published on:

Lord Clarke in his oral evidence to this inquiry agreed that emerging potential threats to public health need to be dealt with speedily.

Published on: