3rd WS

1. 16.4 - Can she explain who she considered to be “beneficiaries”?

   1. The reason for asking this is that it appears over time the original scope of beneficiaries including, broadly, all those infected and affected changed to those infected and, at times, widows.

2. 17.3 - Again, here when she talks of diffusing tensions between MFT and its beneficiaries. Who, specifically, does she mean?

3. 21.2 - Given that it was felt this was wrong. Does she have any observations about the current £10,000 “Bereavement lump sum payment” from EIBSS which is only payable “If a beneficiary died on or after 1 November 2017”? Is this an example of lessons not being learned?

   1. https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/families-deceased-beneficiaries

4. 21.2 - Is it correct that it was felt this was wrong because it meant some families would receive nothing even though, date of death aside, their circumstances were virtually identical to others who would receive a payment?

   1. Would she agree that by setting a date that an infected person had to have died after to be eligible, this essentially meant that the government would pay out less money the longer it waited to do something?

   2. Would she agree that  by setting a date that an infected person had to have died after to be eligible, this would potentially exclude the families of those whose infection progressed more rapidly and therefore, in some circumstances, the impact on that family may have been more severe more quickly than in those where the infection progressed less quickly?

   3. Given that we know Hepatitis C often progresses more quickly in co-infected individuals, would she agree that the cut-off date policy would disproportionately impact the families of individuals infected with HIV?

5. 65.2&3 - Whose decision was it to include reference to the Soldan study in the consultation document?

   1. (See Page 7, §1.1) - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/494004/Infected_blood_cons_doc.pdf

   2. Can she point to where in the Soldan study a figure of 28,000 is mentioned? - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12558342/

   3. Can she explain why Ministers attributed this data as having come from the UKHCDO? - https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-01-27.24489.h&s=blood+28%2C000#g24489.r0

   4. Might it be the case that there is no reliable basis for the 28,000 figure?

Non-WS & Additional

1. Does she agree that the IA from the 2016 consultation makes no mention at all of parents or children of those who have died? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/539994/IA_for_infected_blood.pdf

   1. Why not?

   2. Should it have done?

   3. Worth drawing attention to §4 of MFT trust deed (MACF0000003_064)

2. Same as above in relation to the Equality Analysis - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/540320/EqIA.pdf

   1. There is one ref to “dependent children” but there is no explicit analysis.

3. Ref Redacted - §3 - On what basis was she saying all docs in the public domain?

4. Ref Redacted - Page 3 §1 - On what basis could she advise that "domestic products could not have been safeguarded against risk of HIV and hepatitis C any sooner than they were"?

   1. Is the handwriting in the bottom left of the last page hers? If not does she know whose it is?

      1. Does she accept that point 2 of the handwriting indicates that, as of Feb 2009, DH did not know why the government had not accepted blame?

5. Does she agree that when you look throughout the MFT minutes and the meeting with which she was involved there is reference to those infected who are still alive and widows but not to parents, children and the full scope of people that should have been beneficiaries as outlined in the trust deed?

   1. Does she accept this was a failing of MFT/DH?

   2. Does she accept that as a result of that failing many families will have been deprived of financial support over the years that they otherwise would have been entitled to?

6. Ref Redacted

   1. §8(1) - On what basis was this said?

   2. §8(2) - Which treatments? And on what basis?

   3. §8(3) -  On what basis was this said?

   4. §8(4) - On what basis was this said?

7. Ref Redacted - Page 9 (MFT Section)

   1. Was it a concern to her/DH that the number of people (And types of people) being supported by MFT as outlined in the first para of this section was significantly smaller than the number and types outlined in the MFT trust deed?

      1. Should this have triggered concern? If not earlier.

8. Does she recall being present at a meeting with Anna Soubry (when she was health minister) along with some of those infected/affected, during which there was a dispute about the numbers of those infected?

   1. Is it correct, during this meeting, that she claimed MFT beneficiaries (infected and still alive) had had their money “doubled”?

      1. Is it correct that this was disputed by those present who were infected?

      2. Is it correct that the minister herself doubted claims by Jecock that money had been “doubled”?

9. Does she recall dispute at meetings over the claim by DH that “30,000” people might be eligible for compensation/support payments?

   1. Does she recall being unable to provide any source for where that figure came from?

   2. Does she recall a meeting between David Cameron and some of those infected at which this figure was given to the PM but DH officials were unable to provide any source for it when challenged by those infected in attendance?

10. Can she recollect when she became aware that the DH self-sufficiency report was inaccurate?