13 September 2022: James (Anita) - C

Core Participant questions:

On the missing and then rediscovered in part file numbers as mentioned in a letter: she said she did not know if they were the missing GEB files.

On Dr Rejman not mentioning the unrecovered files: she said she did not remember anything about it.

On the comment that Dr Rejman did not respect lawyers: she said she did not mean it personally, and it was not in respect of him not respecting the law itself.

On the advice sought from Justin Fenwick, if she would have gone to him if they were not likely to be revealed as lost: she said she would still have gone to him.

On her assessment of the reasons for the destruction of records: she said considered the Dr Metters files to have been deliberately destroyed for a particular reason, but not the other records.

On the apparent lack of urgency to track down missing records: she said there was not enough urgency at the first period, but that was not the case subsequently.

On the opportunity to have conducted a forensic search: she said there was other work but that was not a justification.

On liaising with Scottish colleagues: she said that on certain matters they needed the input of Scottish lawyers due to the differences in systems.

On her views that the disclosure process should have been handled better, but not saying anything more: she said it was not to avoid a question but just her lack of remembering.

On the missing GEB files and the numbers requested by Ms McEwan: she said she could not remember.

The Chair asked about the incomplete disclosure of documents and the difficulties at DH. She clarified that it was something she spoke with Justin Fenwick about because it could compromise the litigation since their non-disclosure could not be hidden.

The Chair then asked if anything similar had happened in the witnesses’ other roles. She said it had not.

He then asked for clarification about a comment related to a junior official who had left. She said she was referring to Mr Burrage.

The witness did not have anything to say further.

The Chair thanked the witness and recognised that due to the passage of time there had been difficulties in remembering all there was about the matter of concern to the Inquiry. She apologised again and noted how other factors had contributed to some things being erased from her memory.

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