The chairman of the infected blood inquiry has criticised the submission of a document on the morning its co-author appeared to give evidence.
Professor Christopher Ludlam, a consultant haematologist and reference centre director at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary from 1980 to 2011, appeared remotely to give evidence to the inquiry on Tuesday.
Jenni Richards QC raised the issue of the document apparently co-authored by Prof Ludlam and Professor Gordon Lowe – honorary consultant at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, who is due to give evidence at a later date – entitled The Scottish Perspective on Health Care Organisation, Management of Pandemics and Management of Haemophilia Care.
She said: “I’ve not had the time to read it, the chair has not seen it and no core participant or recognised legal representative would have done so because it arrived with the inquiry only this morning.
“In circumstances where the rule nine request for a statement was sent to you on December 12 last year, are you able to assist us with why this document is being sent to the inquiry now?”
READ MORE: ‘Coalition of secrecy’ claim in probe over blood scandal
Prof Ludlam replied it had taken a while to put the document together and get support from colleagues, and he offered an apology for its lateness.
Ms Richards highlighted the inquiry “has been careful to ask for individual statements” rather than collective documents or submissions.
Asked who produced the document, Prof Ludlam said: “I think it arose out of a discussion, probably between Professor Lowe and the team at the Central Legal Office (CLO).”
Sir Brian Langstaff, chairman of the inquiry
Sir Brian Langstaff, chairman of the inquiry, told Prof Ludlam: “This is an inquiry asking its own questions of witnesses who will be able to say what the facts are.
“You will not called as an expert even though you have, obviously, expertise … but this is not the right place to make a submission … in due course there will be a chance for you to advise the CLO, no doubt, and to discuss with them.
“It looks as though (it is) an attempt to pre-empt some of the discussion. Well, it isn’t.
“And Ms Richards will ask you the questions that she had in mind.”
READ MORE: Financial support increased for patients given infected blood
He added: “I don’t expect this document to have any further currency in this inquiry – you can revise it as much as you like before the end, I won’t read it until then, because I don’t see any proper evidential basis for doing so.
“If your counsel wishes to persuade me otherwise I’m prepared to listen and I will do so tomorrow afternoon once you finish your evidence.
“But for the moment, I’m not very happy that the document is put forward – I don’t necessarily blame you for it but you were party to it.”
Thousands of patients were infected with HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.
About 2,400 people died in what has been labelled the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.
Scotland was the first part of the UK to hold a public inquiry into the scandal, but this did not take place until 2009 and did not report until 2015.
It estimated about 3,000 people were infected in Scotland.
The inquiry continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel