Subscribe to Search results

In a memo Richard Gutowski noted that official papers (namely, "the key submissions to Ministers about self sufficiency") had also been destroyed.

Published on:

In a written statement to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Zubeda Seedat confirmed that the role had been a higher executive officer within the Blood Policy Team.

Published on:

In a written statement, Zubeda Seedat confirmed that many freedom of access searches had been required as well as searching for documents required for the project that Linda Page had been working on in regard to self-sufficiency.

Published on:

In an email exchange between Michelle Lucas and Andrew Faulkner it was stated that questions had come from a Freedom of Information request.

Published on:

In a briefing paper on the Freedom of Information request it had given an explanation that papers marked for public interest immunity during the discovery process on the HIV litigation had been destroyed in error at some time in the mid 1990s.

Published on:

An email from Mike Patrick to Zubeda Seedat confirmed that it was not unlikely given the duration of time that the documents requested in the Freedom of Information request had been destroyed considering the fact that litigation had been settled over 15 years ago.

Published on:

Charles Lister and Anita James concluded that, following the discovery that the documents had been destroyed, she would say an audit had been done by a junior official at the Department of Health who no longer worked there.

Published on:

Lord Owen wrote a letter asking about outcomes from the Burgin report but Richard Gutowski noted in a memo that he did not think that the Self-Sufficiency Report had been set up to address Lord Owen's concerns that his papers had been pulped.

Published on:

Michelle Haywood and William Connon emailed to explore the possibility of further searches of records at archives.

Published on:

Records held by the Department of Health were destroyed in the early nineties because they had been given a short destruction date.

Published on:

A review was conducted of documentation regarding governmental policy in relation to the safety of blood products.

Published on:

Documents held by the claimants' solicitors, Blackett Hart & Pratt Solicitors, in the HIV litigation were returned in the week of 19 May 2006.

Published on:

The House of Lords heard how documents that had been disclosed by the Department of Health held by the claimants' solicitors, Blackett Hart & Pratt Solicitors, in the HIV litigation were returned. However, some 600 files were destroyed.

Published on:

Anita James showed her notebook which demonstrated the numbers of the missing files.

Published on:

Around early 2006 documents held by the claimants' solicitors in the HIV litigation were returned. However, these were copies of the documents rather than the Department of Health's original versions.

Published on:

The Scottish Executive released a large number of documents, some of which the Department of Health, in an internal memo, believed would "inevitably be copies of the ones destroyed by DH".

Published on:

William Connon instructed that a "definitive list" be compiled showing all sets of documents that were destroyed, when they were destroyed, the circumstances of destruction and "likelihood of the documents which had just been found by the solicitors being copies of some of the destroyed documents." Ministers also instructed that an independent legal expert review the documents returned from the claimants' solicitors in the HIV litigation.

Published on:

The Department of Health commissioned an independent legal expert to undertake an initial analysis of the documents that had been returned from the claimants' solicitors in the HIV litigation.

Published on:

The parents of a child with haemophilia complained about the lack of recombinant Factor 8, even though the use of the product had been deemed "appropriate on clinical grounds" by the treating clinician.

Published on:

HM Customs and Excise decided that recombinant Factor 8 could no longer be considered exempt from VAT because it was not a biological product.

Published on: