Factor 8

View Original

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.

  • 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?

  • 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?

  • 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?