Richard Gutowski
1st WS Questions - JE
8.5 - Can he outline in broad terms what he saw his role as in the context of the HIV Haemophilia Litigation?
2nd WS Questions
2.102 - Was it difficult to reconcile this rationale (compassionately, “the right thing to do”) in the context of the exclusion of bereaved families?
2.109 - Does he know why the announcement was through a WMS and not orally?
NB: Many MPs have been frustrated over the years due to the government consistently making announcements on Contaminated Blood through WMS’s. This is because a WMS provides no way for MPs to ask questions of the minister and debate the issue at the time.
2.113 - Doesn’t this contradict the rationale pointed out in 2.102?
2.137 - So would it be correct to understand that the rationale here was not based on “the right thing to do” but on “affordability”?
2.167 - This extract introduces yet another rationale based on “suffering/damage”.
Would it be right to say that, in fact, there was no consistent rationale applied as the basis for payments being made?
Why wasn’t the same rationale of “suffering/damage” being applied to those who were affected?
Might it be right that DH took decisions somewhat off the cuff and then retrospectively tried to justify a rationale? And wouldn’t that explain why there are so many different and conflicting rationales being aired?
Does he have any recollection of DH undertaking, during 2003/2004, any formal investigation as to the suffering/damage experienced by those affected?
2.178 - “Lasting physical damage” - Isn’t this yet another rationale?
Does he agree that “lasting physical damage” goes beyond the rationale above of “suffering/damage”?
2.182 - Was he aware of Christine Lee’s history in relation to the infections of people with haemophilia? And how this may be viewed and/or make people feel?
4.9 - How likely would it have been in reality for DH to have found itself culpable in its own report?
xxx
4.19 - Was he concerned at all about the first Para in the quoted text? Eg that the risk was known, that certain arguments weren’t good ones etc?
Is he aware of these views ever being expressed publicly by DH? (Clearly not)
If not, why would this be?
4.20- Reading through all this back and forth, does he agree that DH staff were scratching around for defensive lines and statements in order to justify not holding a formal inquiry which could get to the answers in a full and objective way?
He accepts the 1985 comment was incorrect?
4.27 - Can he explain what he means by “finally nail”?
On what basis could he say “This view was supported by patients”?
4.46 - Is he aware of any public statements that Lord Owen’s papers were “shredded by Solicitors during the HIV litigation”?
Was he concerned that they were “shredded by Solicitors during the HIV litigation”?
Is he aware of whether Lord Owen was ever informed they were “shredded by Solicitors during the HIV litigation”?
Additional Documents & Non-WS
Given that he was involved in discovery during the HIV Litigation (See doc) and his numerous comments regarding documents being destroyed during/following the litigation. Can he recall what destruction (if any) took place in MCA?
xxx
