Lord Norman Fowler
At 0.3 he says “There was prevarication over many years over the holding of this public inquiry” - On what basis does he say this? What examples of prevarication has he observed in terms of government response?
Did he observe or take part in any discussions with Thatcher on an inquiry in the late 80s / early 90s?
At 0.9 he says “the advice from our medical experts in the Department remained the same, namely that the safest and best course for a parent was to have their children inoculated” - In his example, he makes a link between the “safest” and “best” course, was it his view as a minister that the “best” course of action is generally the “safest” one?
If a course of action to be taken was not the safest, and known not to be the safest, would he expect patients, ministers, to be informed of that?
At 0.35 he says “Self- evidently, if we were to have an inquiry it would have been far, far better had it been done years earlier when more of the main players were still living and recollections were fresher” - What attempts did he make to pursue an inquiry into these matters in the 1980s? If none, why?
At 0.40 he says “The central message of my 2014 book "AIDS - Don't Die of Prejudice" was the shocking prejudice against minorities” - Is there a reason why, as a minority infected group, there is no mention at all of haemophiliacs in the book?
At 4.25(b) he says “I was advised that there was a risk that the AMI group might set up its own private donor panel or import blood” - Can he recall why these two things were seen as a “risk”?
At 4.33 - Can he explain in simple terms what the “failure” he refers to as “this failure” is and who was responsible for it?
4.52, 4.53 & 4.54 - Would he have agreed with the assessments provided by these officials at the time?
4.64 - In relation to this point (the opening of the new unit), please can we refer him to this document: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hllumduxtmtsm4q/thatcher%20stay%20clear%20of%20aids.jpg?dl=0
Does he know why it was suggested that “the Prime Minister should stay clear of AIDS (!)”?
Why was it suggested she could open a hospital instead of BPL?
Does he recall being asked to open the new unit? Why didn’t he?
Does he know how it came to be HRH that opened the new unit?
Might it be the case that it was a political decision not to have anyone from the gov open the new unit so as to avoid criticism for everything that had gone before?
4.68 - When asked about David Owen’s prior commitments he says “It should be remembered that ministers of one party do not have access to the papers of the party they are replacing” - But does he accept that David Owen’s statements were recorded in Hansard? And they are available to ministers, as they are to anyone?
And, that officials can look at their own papers from previous governments and advise ministers accordingly?
At 6.14 he says “UK haemophilia experts took the view that to ban the imports of US FVIII would be to place haemophiliacs at greater risk from bleeding than they would be from acquiring AIDS” - Does he accept that because someone is an expert in haemophilia care, it does not mean they are an expert in epidemiology?
Does he accept that it is only with the views of epidemiology experts that this kind of assessment could be properly made?
Is he aware of what the advice from DHSS Dr (and distinguished epidemiologist) Spence Galbraith was? / Can take to galbraith may 83 letter.
6.40 - Does he recall any thought being given to a targeted campaign to recruit low-risk donors (eg women) in tandem
6.62 - Does he accept the leaflet is still deficit because of the stipulation of being a “pracisting” homosexual / bisexual man? Eg a homosexual man could have been “practicing” as of a year or two previously, but not a present, for any number of reasons, including amongst them, fear of AIDS. This means there is an entire group of homosexual men, at high risk of carrying the AIDS virus (which has at this stage been isolated twice), who are still not asked to refrain from donating by this leaflet.
6.68 - 6.75 - Does he accept there is no clear instruction, in any of this, to tell patients to return/dispose of any non-heat treated FVIII sitting in fridges?
If he was asked to authorise such a national instruction, by the CMO, would he have done so?
Is he surprised that the CMO did not do this?
Can we please take him to this document - https://www.dropbox.com/s/c1b01ix1wukvfzu/Exhibit-25-FNC%20%28Infamous%29.pdf?dl=0
The purpose of taking him to this document is to illustrate the similar approach taken in the UK, that was taken in the US. The key sentence being “He explained that although the FDA could revoke these through the regulatory process. He did not want any attention paid to the fact that the FDA had allowed this situation to continue for so long, and he would like the issue quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public” - Can he see any difference with what is outlined here, to what appears to have happened in the UK?
Who was the person, in the UK, who should have been saying that the licenses for non-HT FVIII need to be revoked?
Did it even occur to him to suggest revocation, or consideration of revocation by the relevant body, of non-HT FVIII licenses?
6.83 - He says "it was not general practice for the CMO (and the department more generally) to dictate prescribing practice" - Does he accept this was not a “general” situation? Does he accept that in exceptional circumstances in the past the CMO and/or department had done exactly that? Does he accept that this was an exceptional circumstance and this should have happened? (There are multiple examples and newspaper clippings I provided to the inquiry previously for Diana Walford evidence).
6.188 - Given he says this was an error on his part, is he happy to clarify for the inquiry now that he did inadvertently mislead the House?
6.194 - Is he aware of any consideration given to the impact of the advert on the haemophilia community specifically?
Should there have been?
Non-WS Questions
Did he ever consider what the psychological impact might be on, for example, a haemophiliac, who has been told he has been infected with HIV, as result of NHS treatment, sitting at home with their family watching the television, now being told by the government, not to “die of ignorance”?
Is he aware of the government, or any health authority, ever requesting a refund on the taxpayer money spent with pharma companies on Hep C/HIV infected FVIII?
Does he think it right that the pharma companies who sold HIV/Hep C infected FVIII should have kept all of the money received for those products?
