The Shredding Fiasco (1989-1992)
"Papers were not adequately archived and were unfortunately destroyed in error."
Caroline Flint, 23 May, 2006
"As previously mentioned, it is our understanding that during the HIV litigation in the 1990's many papers from that period were recalled for the purpose of the litigation. We understand that papers were not adequately archived and were subsequently destroyed in error in the early 1990's."
"Officials at the Department of Health have established that these documents related to the minutes and papers of the Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood between 1989 and 1992. These papers were destroyed between July 1994 and March 1998. A decision, most probably made by an inexperienced member of staff, was responsible for the destruction of these files."
Lord Warner, 27 February 2006
“Records marked for destruction are held in the file store until the marked destruction date, then batched into consignments, marked as destroyed on the file store database, and despatched for secure destruction. The department receives a certificate of destruction for each batch destroyed.”
“Current guidance states that decisions on retention or destruction should be made by, "whoever has best knowledge of the subject matter. The reviewer should be in Payband IP2 (Executive Officer Grade) or above". Departmental policy on records management also states that, "Line managers are responsible for ensuring that record keeping within their areas is consistent and meets Departmental standards".”
Lord Warner, 15 May 2006
"We have carried out a thorough search through the Department's files and we have not been able to trace your signed document. We believe that it may have been amongst the several files which we know were inadvertently destroyed since that time. We have also approached the Macfarlane Trust for their copy of your waiver. Unfortunately neither the Macfarlane Trust nor their legal representatives were able to find a copy of your waiver."
Bilal Ghafoor, Department of Health, 17 October 2006
"The decision to mark the files for destruction was not a deliberate attempt to destroy documentation. It is very unfortunate that the staff member at the time was not fully aware of the significance of the files and the possibility of future litigation."
Sir Nigel Crisp, Department of Health, 1 December 2005
[ ]
“Subsequently of course we have been told it was -- and I put the word in quotes -- "inadvertent". That was the words that Norman Warner used to me and that is the subsequent explanation that has appeared in the correspondence that you have no doubt heard in evidence. It was a mistake, it was an error, it ought never to have happened. I have been unable to reconcile that statement with what the permanent secretary told me when I first met him, that it was decided not to keep the files.”
The Rt. Hon. Lord Jenkin of Roding, Statement to the Archer Inquiry, 14 June 2007
[ ]
“The other issue which I hope you will also be able to elicit is why my own private papers were pulped… …But by 1989 it was very well known that there was a major scandal underway in France, very similar to the circumstances here...
...So in the very period from May 1989 between February 1992, when it is now admitted at long last by the Department that there has been a destruction of documents in the Department of Health, and almost a total filleting out of all the papers relating to the inventory, that did coincide with it being a world scandal and well-known in this country, but there are those who -- and I think this is a very important – I am not capable of making that judgment."
The Rt. Hon. Lord Owen, Statement to the Archer Inquiry, 11 July 2007
[]
“…Is the Minister aware that after my long perusal last year of a large number of files that passed across my desk on this subject as Secretary of State for Health, I was able to confirm, as I had been warned, that all the papers dealing with contaminated blood products have been destroyed? How can the review possibly be comprehensive and tell the whole story if the key papers on how these infections reached these patients have been pulped?”
The Rt. Hon. Lord Jenkin of Roding, House of Lords Hansard, 12 January 2006
[]
"As ten years have elapsed since these events my recollection has faded and in relation to some matters may be incomplete. Also as my official diaries and some other papers have unfortunately been destroyed by DH as part of the official ‘weeding’ process (Annex A) (M39 tab 7) (see also para 112), I am unable to validate, where not otherwise evidenced, details and dates of a number of meetings I attended or dates when I was away from the office on official visits or leave."
Sir Donald Acheson, Witness Statement to the BSE Inquiry, 2 October, 1998
"I left the Department of Health (DH) almost 8 years ago and my recollection of the events surrounding my time as Secretary of State has consequently faded. The problem is compounded by the fact that the original copies of submissions received by me are no longer available."
Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke QC MP, Statement to the BSE Inquiry, 27 November 1998
[ ]
"For a more specific recollection of events and to prepare this statement I have had to rely upon the documents made available to me by the MCA and DoH. I have not seen my own personal BSE files I had whilst at the MCA and have been advised that they cannot be located."
Dr John Purves, Witness Statement to the BSE Inquiry, 5 October 1999
[ ]
"The other groups of documents that were destroyed they haven't even done investigations into, which I do find quite extraordinary, particularly the legal waivers; I mean, those are legal documents.... ....There are over 1,300 waivers that have gone, which is an awful lot of legal documents to lose."
Jenny Willott MP, Statement to the Archer Inquiry, 14 June 2007
[ ]
"I cannot remember the discussion about the product and am unable to consult the file since I understand it has been destroyed since 1987."
Mr John S. Sloggem, Witness Statement to the BSE Inquiry, 4 October 1999
[]
"The Inquiry should be aware that the documents made available to me may not be a complete record of the documents that I saw at the relevant time. One reason for this is that all my early papers on BSE were removed by a colleague and never returned. The colleague in question no longer works at the MCA and the papers have never been located."
Dr Frances Rotblat, Haematologist, Statement to the BSE Inquiry, 25 May 1999
[] [ ]
"I gained access only in recent weeks that to the very many papers that I had written about BSE all those years ago, and there had been no reason for me to keep up with subsequent developments. Several of the BSE–related files I established in 1988-1990 appear to have been dismantled making the task of recalling events especially difficult."
Dr Hilary Pickles, Witness Statement to the BSE Inquiry, circa 1999
[ ]
"I believe I have seen all relevant papers in the possession of the Scottish Office, (although others have come to light since the first draft of this Statement, hence the delay). But their inability to produce copies of the documents I saw including the notes I made as I read them is regrettable. I understand that these documents have been destroyed and by virtue of this, my Statement is a best recollection of events that occurred between six and eight years ago."
Lord Strathclyde, Witness Statement to the BSE Inquiry, 27 May 1999
[]
"It is difficult to recollect in detail the events surrounding BSE/CJD. The most recent events so far as my own involvement is concerned, occurred more than three years ago. I have therefore had to rely on the documents provided by the Department of Health. In doing so, I am conscious that the documentary records are not complete, and that my private office’s copies of documents, sometimes bearing my own annotations, are not available."
The Rt. Hon. Virginia Bottomley MP, Statement to the BSE Inquiry, 14 Dec. 1998
[ ]The Rt. Hon. Virginia Bottomley MP, Statement to the BSE Inquiry, 14 December 1998
“During the whole of the period under review by the Inquiry, the Department of Health had in place a system for deciding whether to preserve or destroy documents.” …. “The Inquiry has heard evidence from certain witnesses who, in preparing their evidence, would have wished to have had access to original Ministerial papers. For our part, we see why the Inquiry might also wish to have access to such papers, for it is theoretically conceivable that they might be of some assistance to it. However, we believe that it is unrealistic to expect that all Ministerial papers would have been preserved.”
Sir Christopher France & Sir Graham Hart, Statement to the BSE Inquiry, 11 Oct. 1999