To: Hugo Keith; email@example.com
Tue 30/05/2023 22:49
Re: Claas Kirchhelle’s historical report to the inquiry
Dear Mr Keith,
In view of my having been informed by Claas that the inquiry’s legal team has insisted that I ‘withdraw’ from this report and that he removes sections directly attributable to me, the purposes of this email are to inform you of my role in connection with the report, and to request that appropriate and accurate language is found to describe that role.
Claas is the author of the report and adviser to the inquiry on the history. Along with my colleagues, James Lancaster and Peter Roderick, we have spent many hours providing information and analysis to Claas, and made comments and suggestions on drafts, based on James’ recent archival research, our public health expertise, and our considerable knowledge of the administrative and legal development of the systems for communicable disease control in (mainly) England. Some of this work has been derived from two reports I was involved in for the Infected Blood Inquiry. It was entirely up to Claas, exercising his professional judgment, to decide how, if at all, he wished to use what we provided him with. It has been a pleasure to work with him.
I fail to understand the legal team’s reasoning for insisting on my ‘withdrawal’. Claas has produced an extensive report and he has, quite properly, stated that he has been assisted by me (and James and Peter). I am not 100% sure what is meant by ‘withdrawal’ but if it means that the report would be presented to the public without acknowledgement of my role, then I would regard that as personally unfair and publicly dishonest.
I understand you will be speaking with Claas shortly, and I hope very much that you will be able to find a form of words to acknowledge my role and assistance.
Allyson M Pollock
(Clinical Professor of Public Health)
03 July 2023 – edited to correct typos