19 May 2022: Mellor - B

This witness has a very Establishment viewpoint on the world, albeit more outwardly respectful in comparison with his BFF Ken Clarke. This privileged view might be expected of someone who achieved the heady heights of becoming a Privy Council member. A humorous aside was for Mr Mellor to point out how his loud playing of classical music affected a Mr Davey so much so that he went on to become the boss of Radio 3.

A series of documents covering issues about the Macfarlane Trust and the HIV litigation were displayed. It was clear that the Trust were not nearly as certain as Mr Mellor suggests in having an expectation of additional funds once the £10m was used up. It likely caused the cautious approach, including concerns expressed by haemophiliacs that once the initial amount was used up, there would be nothing more available. The Trust saw the £10m as being for meeting need and was definitely not compensation. The support with mortgage payments included contractual commitments to give the Trust a stake in the property being supported – i.e. the claimant’s home. Mr Mellor stated he made it as clear as he could that more money would be forthcoming when it was required. However, he also said that no Minister could give a commitment of funding, say five years forward, unless the Treasury had sanctioned it.

The potential conflict of interest of the same officials who were part of vehemently opposing something then being included in taking the new policy forward was mentioned. It happens a lot.

The next topic was the HIV litigation. Notes of a high-level meeting were displayed. It was to respond to and bat off legal action. At more than one point Mr Mellor asked Counsel if he had answered a question in his statement. The answer was “No,” but the question hangs in the air about the extent to which the witness wrote his statement himself. The DH anticipated they would be able to successfully defend any action. Winning a court case on this matter was seen as helpful to set a precedent that would support the Government in any future claims. Mr Mellor then sought to get Counsel to adjust the order of the issues being encountered, and Counsel agreed to that.

The witness said he did not want to say the DH had no responsibility at all under a duty of care in a situation when so many people were so badly affected. Lawyers were paid to say such things, but he couldn’t bring himself to say it. The responses from Mr Mellor began to include increasing levels of humorous content, such as a reference to the witness telling his mother he had played the piano in a brothel. (What!) The issue of precedent was highlighted as a motivation for defending cases, even if the case was justified. It might be used by others with far less justifiable cases. He did say that he himself didn’t want a fight over the infection of people by the NHS. There were some efforts to provide support payments. “It was £30,000 and a fat lot of good that would do,” said Mr Mellor, suggesting it was far short of what people should receive for what happened to them. The witness said that no fault liability is the easy way out of avoiding accountability, and it stops people who deserve proper compensation getting anything like what they should. (This section of evidence needs to be reviewed for useful sound-bites.)

Frank Field (a one-time Vice-chair of the Haemophilia Society) is reported as saying that “this issue isn’t going to go away.” When considering options for paying something to infected people. The witness did not like the German approach, but the Government did look at what happened in other countries. Newspaper articles were a form of political and public pressure, and Mr Mellor said that was often helpful, although others did not welcome it. It could help a Minister in Cabinet Meetings to make the case to colleagues for action, including funding to get something done.

There was an exchange about newspapers apparently quoting sources who might be fictitious but useful to make a case. Mr Mellor said that in this situation it was not necessary to make a case since the evidence was stark enough. (Yet, Mr Mellor, why are we still waiting for a settlement if it was accepted as you are reporting?) He claimed to having wanted to “do the right things” but others got concerned about what else it might lead to. On the matter of a Minister moving on from his or her job, the witness reported it was not always the case that there were handover briefings. Also, there were many cases when a decision by a Minister, even a major decision, being reversed or just not actioned as soon as the Minister leaves office; especially if it was not a popular decision within his part of Government.

“Just because somebody got hurt, it doesn’t always mean it was somebody’s fault,” said Mr Mellor. He then went on to say how wrong it was for people to still be waiting for a settlement after 30 years. From a memo, Mr Mellor suggested that regardless of any court case, the Government would “lose” on this matter. He said he had been extremely sceptical about how some apparently very clever people were saying that the Government could “wriggle out” of the claims. There was a continuation of the humorous asides, including commenting on an event of being on a flight and there was likely nothing else to do on a plane back from Qatar, which probably didn’t allow alcohol, than to read the Sunday Times.

Mr Mellor thought there were enough smart people around who could come up with a way of sorting out compensation. The witness gave context that at the time he was being requested to be brought back to the Home Office to fix another problem. His contextualising included relating the story of Ken Clarke having a blazing argument with Margaret Thatcher about Mr Clarke not wanting Mr Mellor to be pulled away from the DH. This argument occurred while Mr Clarke was standing up stark naked in his bath, possibly in full view of neighbours. (The image created caused a collective wince in the hearing room.)

Further documents demonstrate how much the Government lawyers had their grubby hands all over these matters. Clearly, the haemophiliacs were increasingly being seen as the enemy. Despite the assuring words of Mr Mellor, the documents do not show any sense of the DH recognising its role in the whole contaminated blood scandal. Mr Mellor had previously even used the word “scandal” himself. Not only were the officials and lawyers telling each other and Ministers that the case could be won, but that to go down a route of paying out without court action could be very challenging. They reinforced this view by reeling off all kinds of reasons why that should not be done. It was like a kind of Project Fear about what might result. The internal documents describing the options discussed by lawyers and officials to body-swerve a court and compensation situation are very enlightening and may be worth reviewing (timestamp around 1pm). It included a proposal originating from a Haemophilia Centre Director to hold a “Commission of Enquiry” into the history of what happened and the reasonable payments to alleviate the suffering caused.

There were further explorations of options based on what other countries had done. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he signed off a £42m amount which he said, “didn’t sound like a lot”. But even while that was happening, he was being distracted by the need to sort out a Broadcasting Bill issue. Just before the lunch break, there was a wet justification for Ministers not doing all that they could or should do by saying, “You could really only deal with the paper in front of you.”