8 June 2022: Lister - D

Mr Lister was asked about the discovery of there being missing documents as reported by Dr Rejman. These disappearances pre-dated the witness’s time in post. On noting that some files were destroyed prior to the 5-year rule, he said the dates were not really significant because those documents should never have been marked for destruction in the first place. He tried to locate copies of the papers missing from the relevant files, including from Professor Zuckerman’s office, Sandra Falconer in Scotland, among various others who might have had reason to hold copies. The witness was successful in recovering a number of documents, but certainly not them all. Did anyone ever ask why the documents were wrongly marked for destruction at all, let alone how it could be possible for files to be destroyed before a recorded date, erroneous or not? I smell a large rodent of under-explored inconsistency.

A set of personal files for one doctor who was considered to be a good likely source of records (Dr Metters) had been destroyed by that person’s secretary. Her excuse for doing so was apparently due to the trauma and consequences of the BSE Inquiry process. More significantly, there was also the prospect of impending litigation where these papers would be important evidence. By this stage that secretary had moved on to working for the then Deputy Chief Medical Officer, but no specific report was made about the secretary’s actions. Indeed, this episode was never pursued, with the suggested explanation by the witness being that it was because it involved junior staff. Counsel did pursue the matter, but when asked why various listed people were not spoken to about what had happened, Mr Lister could not say.

All that remained was the matter of the core participants’ questions.

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