Subscribe to Search results

During his oral evidence Charles Lister was asked to explain what he meant by a "groupthink". He had reflected in his second and third statements on whether or not there was a collective mindset or a groupthink in the Department of Health about issues such as public inquiry and the HCV compensation scheme.

Published on:

Charles Lister referred to the "established government position" of every minister who maintained the no public inquiry line.

Published on:

Charles Lister stated that the documents "shouldn't have been marked for destruction at all, so the dates are almost irrelevant. But yes, it makes no sense that they were marked for destruction at any stage."

Published on:

When asked whether the decisions made by the Department regarding the HCV payment scheme and the public inquiry were affected by groupthink or the collective, Charles Lister stated "looking back on this, I asked myself whether I could have, you know, done anything differently, and I said wasn't honestly sure that I could have done. And I think that's where I am still at."

Published on:

Charles Lister received an email from Anita James seeking a progress update. He replied stating more files had been destroyed.

Published on:

Charles Lister was the head of the blood policy unit at the Department of Health from 1998 - 2003.

Published on:

In his oral evidence to the Inquiry regarding the decision making in the Department of Health, Charles Lister explained that he was not sure whether he could have done anything differently and that GEB documents should not have "been marked for destruction at all".

Published on:

In oral evidence, Richard Gutowski acknowledged that as of June 2003 there was only minor referencing work required on the Self-Sufficiency Report.

Published on:

Richard Gutowski gave evidence about the defensive approach taken by the Department of Health, stating that putting up a defensive briefing pre-emptively is a "pragmatic Civil Service approach".

Published on:

Richard Gutowski had discussions with senior officers in the Health Protection Division prior to advising the new Secretary of State on 17 June 2003 that there was no justification to move away from the existing line to take regarding "inadvertent" infections.

Published on:

When pressed during oral evidence Richard Gutowski had said that his view was similar to that of officials who would accordingly advise strongly against an out of court settlement in the HIV/haemophiliacs litigation.

Published on:

In his oral evidence, Justin Fenwick KC gave greater detail in relation to the proposed settlement.

Published on:

The loss of documentation by the Department of Health was described by Justin Fenwick QC as likely being more of a mistake and negligent error over a deliberate one.

Published on:

Justin Fenwick QC stated that he and Andrew Collins QC would have advised on document retention.

Published on:

Justin Fenwick QC stated in his oral evidence that he could not understand how the Department of Health managed to let documents get destroyed.

Published on:

In oral evidence Justin Fenwick QC stated that the idea that staff "should have allowed documents to go missing was intensely frustrating".

Published on:

Professor Ironside told the Inquiry that there had been 178 cases of vCJD in the UK identified as definite (supported by post-mortem) or probable (no post-mortem), though the latter category was virtually certain.

Published on:

David Mellor suggested that there was never any likelihood that payments would not be extended to transfusion patients, and no merit in the distinction between people with haemophilia and transfusion recipients infected with HIV, but that "there needed to be a bit of grief along the way...people can't have easy wins. If you are the Treasury you have to lose in a tough minded way".

Published on:

In oral evidence Ms Elisabeth Buggins, Ms Brenda Haddock and Ms Christine Woolliscroft described a lack of historic communications on the severity of hepatitis and the risks of contracting hepatitis from concentrates.

Published on:

Elizabeth Buggins asked by the hospital to seek support elsewhere because staff at the hospital were becoming burdened. When she gave oral evidence to the Inquiry, her memory was quite clear that the doctors "encouraged us not to ask unless they felt we really needed to know"

Published on: