Subscribe to Search results

In a memo from Charles Dobson to Alan Davey on AIDS litigation it was stated that "at every stage it [the government] has acted as swiftly as possible to minimise the risk of infecting haemophiliacs with AIDS in the light of the best expert opinion available at the time".

Published on:

When asked about the assertion that government had acted efficiently to minimise infections to individuals with haemophilia Dr Rejman confirmed that there had been no formal review to justify this.

Published on:

In a letter from Brian Colvin to Dr Rejman disclosure of UKHCDO meeting minutes had been discussed which Dr Rejman had some concerns about.

Published on:

A memo from Anita James to Dr Rejman had discussed the minutes of a legal liability meeting in regard to blood products and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and counsel had advised that further academic research was required and to look at other jurisdictions.

Published on:

Dr Rejman had responded to Anita James with his concerns and his disagreement with counsel's advice on the matter.

Published on:

In a memo from Dr Rejman to John Canavan, he expressed his views on compensation for infected and affected persons including wives who had put themselves at risk against medical advice and having cut off points for claims.

Published on:

Richard Gutowski confirmed in his written statement his concerns and comments had fed into Charles Dobson's submission about the HIV litigation.

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:

Linda Page had been assigned a specific project following the publication of the "Self-Sufficiency in Blood Products in England and Wales: A Chronology from 1973 to 1991" which was published in 2006.

Published on:

The project objectives for Linda Page to follow were to "Assess and report on documents relating to previous Government policy on the safe use of imported and domestic blood products during the period 1970 to 1985 when BPL commenced general issue of 8Y heat-treated factor VIII. Specifically the inactivation of blood products for NANBH."

Published on:

The "Independent Public Inquiry Report on NHS Supplied Contaminated Blood and Blood Products" had stated that the Department of Health needed to be able to interact with an inquiry chaired by Lord Archer of Sandwell (the "Archer Inquiry").

Published on:

In an email exchange from Charles Lister he had noted that documents kept by private offices were never held onto when there was a change in government and either handed back or shredded.

Published on:

Charles Lister had explained to Zubeda Seedat that "Unfortunately, none of the key submissions to Ministers about self sufficiency from the 70s/early 80s appear to have survived".

Published on:

Charles Lister confirmed in an email to Zubeda Seedat that the self sufficiency report had not included investigation into into the destruction of Lord Owen's papers.

Published on:

In an email Charles Lister provided some insight into Lord Owen's "allegation about pulped papers" and how the government would not keep papers after a change and so they were most likely shredded.

Published on:

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: