Zubeda Seedat
Zubeda Seedat - JE Questions
1st WS
152 - She says “He also sent a computer print-out of the destruction records for volumes 16 and 18 of GEB/1”. However, the email at WITN4912084 actually refers to Vol’s 16 & 17.
For completeness, Vol 18 is confirmed to have been existing as of 2018 via the following FOI request (see page 3): https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/462267/response/1121950/attach/2/FOI%201118059%20Evans%20reply.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
Also, why is there no mention of GEB 1 VOL’s 19 - 21 also confirmed in existence in the above FOI? Was she ever aware of these further volumes?
163 - Can she expand upon “any impropriety or improper motive”. What would, in her view, DH have considered to be examples of “impropriety or improper motive”?
2nd WS
13.2 - Her answer refers to paras from the previous statement, but those answers do not answer the questions asked by IBI. Push for an answer on this.
15.1 - Whose responsibility would it have been to take the initiative to investigate or to flag the potential need to investigate? Who should this emanate from?
29.2 - Would it be acceptable behaviour within the civil service for a civil servant to send correspondence advocating to stop political alliances on issues?
36.6 - Is she aware of DH carrying out searches at The National Archives?
A quick search, export and analysis of files for the keyword “haemophilia” shows the below relevant files were opened at TNA between 2000 - 2005. There are almost certainly more files opened at TNA pre-2006 which are relevant which would arise from other relevant keywords. I do not know when TNA launched the online discovery catalogue, but using the WayBackMachine, it seems there was no online search function for files pre-2006, so searches would need to have been undertaken manually.
BN 13/88
FD 23/1374
PREM 15/1210
FD 23/1373
BN 13/89
FD 23/1372
BN 13/90
FD 9/1123
MH 168/142
FD 1/8995
FD 23/1365
FD 23/2316
FD 1/7920
MH 160/1061
MH 160/1062
MH 160/1063
48.3 - Does she know if any investigation actually took place to ascertain if this was correct?
53.3 & 53.4 - These notes imply the raising of the profile of the issue being investigated as a negative. Why would that be?
57.2 - Can she expand upon what the “good reasons” were?
Additional
Was she aware that in 2007, during her time in the Blood Policy team at DH and around the time that the Archer Inquiry was active, that DEFRA destroyed a file of potential relevance entitled “LICENCES-IMPORTATION OF DRIED BLOOD,BLOOD PLASMA-BLOOD ALBUMIN AND SERUM” dated 1979?
Is she aware of any steps DH took during the time of Archer to ensure that DH itself and/or other departments did not destroy potentially relevant documentation?
It should be noted that DEFRA does hold other relevant evidence to human blood/blood products as demonstrated by this separate FOI: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/file_65397264
With particular reference to the 1st para… Would she have taken information like this as fact? Did she share the view provided in para 1?
Would she have found the email above was very much in contrast to the email sent to her at DHSC0004294_002
How would those two differing accounts of history have been reconciled?
To assist IBI, the email from Charles Hay was a reply to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sei8kw9qtybbalt/DSC00547.JPG?dl=0
It appears these emails were sent to a number of haemophilia treaters, there is similar email at DHSC0046315_051 to Mark Winter
In this email chain she is asked if heat treatment killed HCV in all blood products and she re-drafts to say it does, note addition of the word “all”. On what basis did she draft that information?
