Skip to main content
Show — Main navigation
Hide — Main navigation
Home
About
The Chair
Inquiry Team
Expert Groups
Inquiry Intermediaries
Core Participants
Legal Representatives
Inquiry Memorial
Financial Reports
Approach
Terms of reference
List of Issues
Statements of approach
Inquiry Principles
News
News
Newsletter Archive
Reports
The Inquiry Report
Additional Compensation Report
First Interim Report
Second Interim Report
Compensation Framework Study
Evidence
Evidence
Hearings Archive
Compensation
Support
Support and FAQs
NHS Psychological Support
Support Groups
Infected Blood Support Schemes
Hepatitis C Testing
Contact us
Search
Accessibility Tool
Zoom in
Zoom out
Reset
Contrast
Accessibility tool
Listen
Get in touch
Quick Exit
Subscribe to Search results
Search
Sort your search results
Relevance
Title
Changed
Lord Waldegrave told the Inquiry that there was a moral responsibility for the Government: that it would have been a horrible experience for those making the case to have to go to court, and damaging for the Government because of the bad press they would receive for being heartless.
Published on:
21 August, 2024
Lord Waldegrave told the Inquiry that he was advised by the Department of Health and by the Treasury that the proposed settlement figure was "on the high side".
Published on:
21 August, 2024
Lord Waldegrave told the Inquiry that he was anxious for speed when is came to settlement.
Published on:
21 August, 2024
Lord Waldegrave told the Inquiry he considered there were two arguments which were key to winning the argument with the Treasury regarding the settlement. "The victims' lawyers have come forward with an offer that they say will be seen as fair by their clients. This will not recur, we've got to do this and do it quickly. And look at the numbers; you can afford them, we can afford them."
Published on:
21 August, 2024
In his oral evidence to the Inquiry, Lord Waldegrave explained his reasons for wanting to announce an agreement in principle whether or not there had been any agreement with the plaintiffs' representatives, and in circumstances where the plaintiffs themselves clearly would not all have agreed.
Published on:
21 August, 2024
In his evidence to the Inquiry, Sir John Major accepted that he would not argue against a conclusion that the Government's position could have been settled sooner.
Published on:
07 August, 2024
In his oral evidence to the Inquiry, Sir John Major noted that if he had been told that there were question marks about the best treatment available, or whether patients had been given proper information about risks, or whether there was a delay in the introduction of screening, he would have asked for more information.
Published on:
09 August, 2024
Sir John Major perceived that nothing wrong was done.
Published on:
15 August, 2024
In his oral evidence, Sir John Major noted that in 1990 it would have been "absurdly foolish" to not have taken the opportunity to settle an issue that had caused victims a great deal of anguish.
Published on:
21 August, 2024
In his oral evidence to the inquiry, Lord Horam acknowledged that he was repeatedly briefed by civil servants that people had received the best available treatment at the time.
Published on:
09 August, 2024
Lord John Horam stated that he had only seen the letter from Joseph Grice to Charles Dobson on 18 December 1995 when preparing his statement for the Inquiry.
Published on:
15 August, 2024
Viriginia Bottomley described how, in light of the report on Gerald Malone's meeting with John Marshall MP, alarm bells started to ring.
Published on:
11 October, 2024
There was a shift in the NHS funding model which took place in 1991, from centralised and area funding provided by the Department of Health and regional health authorities, to an internal market system.
Published on:
09 September, 2024
Lord Waldegrave's evidence to the Inquiry noted that it took until February 1992 for the Government to change its position because it took that much time to overcome the arguments of precedence.
Published on:
07 August, 2024
John Canavan, in his oral evidence, stated he did not recall that in the first half of 1989 he had been involved in any examination of the Department of Health's or Government's past actions.
Published on:
21 August, 2024
John Canavan stated that reference to the HCV screening being marginal in terms of cost benefit by the Department of Health related to the economic cost-benefit and not the public health benefit.
Published on:
09 September, 2024
Professor David Armstrong gave evidence to the Inquiry that during the 70s, 80s and 90s the medical community thought that infectious diseases had been removed as a major threat.
Published on:
25 July, 2024
The expert group on Public Health and Administration highlighted the attributes of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality formed the bedrock upon which the Civil Service was built; and this is as applicable to government ministers and officials as it is to clinicians.
Published on:
09 August, 2024
Professor Charles Vincent described that the cause of death is determined by the person who is filling out the death certificate.
Published on:
12 August, 2024
Gary McKelvey told the Inquiry about the difficulties accessing support in Northern Ireland for his bereaved mother because his father's medical records had been destroyed.
Published on:
30 July, 2024
Pagination
First page
First
Previous page
Previous
…
Page
2350
Page
2351
Page
2352
Page
2353
Current page
2354
Page
2355
Page
2356
Page
2357
Page
2358
…
Next page
Next
Last page
Last