The taintedblood Timeline  -  what really happened...

An internal investigation is undertaken in April 2000 by the Department's Internal Audit following the discovery that documents relating to the Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood between 1989 and 1992 had been destroyed in error.

A landmark case, A vs. National Blood Authority, is brought by 114 people infected with HCV via contaminated blood. Mr Justice Burton rules compensation be paid by the National Blood Authority and Velindre NHS Trust.

Dr F G Williams, Director of the Welsh Blood Service in a paper for a Velindre NHS Trust Board Meeting entitled "Effects of the Hepatitis C Litigation", includes mention of the reason why ministers decided not to appeal. Under point 9, Dr Williams writes:

"After careful consideration the Minister has decided not to appeal against this judgement. As the Consumer Protection Act was enacted as a direct result of the European Directive this would be taken to the European Court as final arbiter and, as stated previously, the European Directive was tighter in its wording then the Act in the United Kingdom."

Lord Burlison: "The Government have decided not to seek leave to appeal against the judgment. Although an appeal would have provided an opportunity to seek clarification on some aspects of the judgment that may have a bearing on the future liability of the National Health Service bodies, the Government did not wish to subject the claimants to a further period of uncertainty while an appeal was under way".

Note: The reason not to appeal was just the opposite. Any appeal would have gone straight to the European Court as final arbiter.

The recent decision by the High Court has no implications for anyone infected with hepatitis C before the Consumer Protection Act came into force in March 1988. This includes the vast majority of HAEMOPHILIACS who were probably infected before that date.

The Right Honourable Lord Jenkin of Roding writes to Sir Nigel Crisp requesting a meeting to discuss record management within the Department of Health. (Ref. Missing 600 Documents.)

Sir Nigel Crisp replies to Lord Jenkin's enquiry as to why documents recently requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) pertaining to contaminated blood were shredded allegedly in the early 1990s. The letter describes how it was believed that an inexperienced member of staff mistakenly marked the files for destruction.

Lord Warner (The Minister of State, Department of Health): "Officials at the Department of Health have established that these documents related to the minutes and papers of the Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood between 1989 and 1992. These papers were destroyed between July 1994 and March 1998. A decision, most probably made by an inexperienced member of staff, was responsible for the destruction of these files."

Note: It is odd to observe the explanation that these documents were destroyed by "an inexperienced member of staff" when the Government itself (House of Lords) admits just 3 months later that only staff of "Executive Officer Grade or above" (Payband IP2), would have had the authority to do this.

In answer to a question from Lord Morris regarding what grade of official can make an order for the shredding of documents within the Department of Health, Lord Warner states:

"Current guidance states that decisions on retention or destruction should be made by, "whoever has best knowledge of the subject matter. The reviewer should be in Payband IP2 (Executive Officer Grade) or above."

Departmental policy on records management also states that, "Line managers are responsible for ensuring that record keeping within their areas is consistent and meets Departmental standards.""

Caroline Flint: "During the HIV litigation many papers were recalled, and following that we understand papers were not adequately archived and were unfortunately destroyed in error. Officials subsequently established during the hepatitis C litigation that documents relating to the Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood between 1989 and 1992 had been destroyed in error. Following this discovery, an internal investigation was undertaken in April 2000 by the Department's Internal Audit."

Note:
With regard to the "Hepatitis C Litigation", persons with haemophilia were excluded from these Consumer Protection Act (CPA) cases because the legal profession assumed that our hepatitis C infection occurred before product liability was absorbed into the Consumer Protection Act in 1987/88.

"My Lords, we have established that a number of documents that have been disclosed by the department in the HIV and hepatitis C litigation were held by Blackett Hart & Pratt Solicitors. It agreed to return the papers to our solicitors, who are now considering them with other departmental officials. Advice has yet to be given to Ministers on the significance of the returned files."

"My Lords, the files that have turned up came from the archives of more than one firm of English solicitors. Given the substantial volume of documents passed to the department's solicitors - I am told that there are no fewer than 12 big lever-arch files and the fact that what they have is a small fraction of the material that has been held in solicitors' archives..."