11 May 2022: Perry - E

Here we go with the questions from core participants’ legal teams, but before that Dr Rejman wanted to make a correction about the HIV look-back exercise. I hope he realised his error by himself rather that it be picked up in a discussion about his evidence, which of course is a no-no. When he said he wanted to make a correction, there was a long list of things springing to mind. Which one would it be? None of the important ones, it turned out.

And so to the quick-fire questions round:

Cut-off dates for HIV transfusion: He confirmed the situation.

Hep C screening, the Penrose Inquiry, informing patients: He didn’t know.

Discovering files: Yes, he had a conversation with Mr Burrage.

HCV litigation, chasing down lawyers for more information: He had already been busy enough with English cases, let alone Scotland.

His equivalent in Scotland: He thought it was possibly Aileen Keel.

Timing of HCV screening: He referred to Prof Zuckerman.

HIV Haemophilia litigation, toning down parts of a report: He doesn’t know if it was due to incorrect science or criticism of DH.

Securing experts for litigation cases: He said it was a matter for Justin Fenwick.

Were Drs Walford and Smithies asked for statements in the HIV litigation: He was not aware of this requirement.

Meaning of “helpful/useful” documents for cases: He meant relevant, not just those in support of Government.

Jaundice as an indicator: He said jaundice did not indicate severity.

Were GEB files among those taken home: No.

Was High Purity Factor 8 one of the “fancy drugs” he had referred to: He thought at the time there was not really a medical benefit between intermediate and high purity product, so they had to be careful about costs/benefits.

“These haemophiliacs” infected/uninfected: He said it related to the litigation case, but cost of treatments was still a factor.

Civil servant role to protect the DH: He saw it as his role to provide the necessary information to Ministers, which might be a way of protecting them and the Department, including calling out inaccurate press reports.

There were no questions from Sir Brian.

Dr Rejman gave a brief closing statement, “blah, blah, blah”. In the interests of maintaining a nausea-free zone, let’s leave it at that.

The Chair gave one of his cryptic thank-you’s. He said the past two days had illustrated how it could be much more revealing to hear evidence in person than just in writing, and he now had a better appreciation of the witnesses’ approach and thinking. (As Batman would say … Biff. Pow. Zap. Zapow. Whamm. Klonk.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

26 July 2023: Sunak - A

And in walked the Prime Minister (PM), at exactly 2pm. One minute later the Chair enters. Sir Brian said a few words of thanks for the special circumstances related to access people had to endure due to the additional security arrangements. The PM gave the oath following his own religious affiliation. Counsel contextually reviewed how the witness had stated that his knowledge and involvement relied on other Ministers, however he had received more recent briefings in preparation for the appearance today. The first questions went straight to the communications from Penny Mordaunt when she was Paymaster General (PG). These highlighted in strong terms the need for action at the time and not to delay. Before answering, the witness wanted to say how he recognised this was, “An appalling scandal … people have suffered for decades” (and other fine words not backed up with action). In relation to the letters from the PG, he did not see them under the normal situation of a triage to filter the c...
Read more

25 July 2023: Dunn - B

Questions from core participants: Was there an investigation into the newspaper leaks? She was not aware of one, but that would have been taken forward by the Cabinet Office. (Fox and chicken coop comes to mind.) What are the main elements being used to come up with the leaked figures? She was not able to say but would get back to the Inquiry with that information. On psychological support, will the research be made publicly available, and when? She expected it would be and was expected in August. The research was understood to have been commissioned in 2022, but the need was highlighted in 2020. Why did it take so long to get to the point of commissioning the work? She said there was a process of “ongoing dialogue” after which it was decided that what was required was more ongoing dialogue. (That’s not exactly how it was phrased.) The Chair referenced himself as having, on several occasions, expressed the hope that he can recognise how everyone in the UK, including England, was benefi...
Read more

17 November 2022: Panel on finding the undiagnosed - A

Another panel of leading medics were assembled to address the issue of how to find people who are still undiagnosed. There was one from each of the four nations: Professor Graham Foster (England); Professor John Dillon (Scotland); Doctor Brendan Healey (Wales); and Dr Joanne McLean (Northern Ireland). As usual, for each witness there was a brief review of their respective roles and responsibilities. The situation in England started with a description of the HCV elimination initiative and its arrangement involving the pharmaceutical companies which was lauded by the English witness but seemed curious. For their cooperation, the pharma companies get anonymous, headline data on patients. There is a three phase elimination programme in England. Phase 1 is about oral therapies. Phase 2 is about risk groups. It involves an incentivised process to encourage the identification by re-engagement with patients who had had a positive test but had not been treated. It involved about 50,000 people. ...
Read more