Factor 8

View Original

Lord Nigel Crisp

Factor 8

Nigel Crisp

1st WS

  1. 54 - Would he have expected that any such internal audit would include interviewing all individuals thought to be involved in the destruction of the files in question?

2nd WS

  1. 2.14(2) - He says in relation to HCV test comments that DH “did not..”...get this right” and, “should have been drafted differently”. Would he agree that the problem actually goes beyond the line not changing following A & Others judgement because there is also an additional problem, that despite the lines being made public over and over, no one ever corrected the line publicly or made it known that it was wrong?

    1. Should an official or someone in government have spotted that it was wrong after it was made public in addition to beforehand? So there are two failings?

  2. He says throughout this WS at various points in time that he did not “hold a view” as to whether a public inquiry should be held. Why was that?

    1. Should he have familiarised himself enough with the subject to hold a view?

  3. 2.37 - “it could be said that all the `information' was not in the public domain” - would he go further than that, and agree, even on the basis of what he sets out here, it was a fact that “that all the `information' was not in the public domain”?

Document-Based

  1. ARCH0002968

    1. §7 - Why did he tell Lord Jenkin that those infected with HIV had received “substantial sums of compensation”?

    2. §7 - Does agree that there would have been a “point” in keeping files related to the haemophiliacs being infected with HIV, even after litigation?

    3. Can he explain why the explanation given by himself and ministers about how/why papers were destroyed were different, as explained in §13 and §14?

  2. DHSC0046961_010

    1. “I understand that a decision, most probably made by an inexperienced member of staff, was responsible for the destruction of a number of files” - On what basis could this be said?

    2. “The decision to mark the files for destruction was not a deliberate attempt to destroy documentation.” - How could this be said so definitively? Particularly given the use of the word “Probably” above?

    3. “that the staff member at the time was not fully aware of the significance of the files and the possibility of future litigation” - On what basis could this be said?

    4. “I am very sorry that the Department no longer holds many papers going back to the 1970's and 1980's.” - Given that the IBI has obtained X thousands of documents from DH, would he accept this was not correct?

  3. LDOW0000352

    1. [REDACTED]