19 May 2022: Mellor - C

The afternoon began by noting the shake-up following the resignation of Margaret Thatcher and her replacement by John Major as Prime Minister. Norman Lamont became Chancellor and Mr Mellor became Chief Secretary to the Treasury (CST). William Waldegrave began as Minister of State for Health. The CST role is responsible for all budget spending across all Departments. Most Departments sought to access more money, and when that was used up, they tried to make a case for opening up the “Reserve”. However, “The worst thing you can ever do in the Treasury is to say ‘Yes’”, was a telling rule of thumb admitted by Mr Mellor, and that did not just apply to the Reserve.

The period coincided with the Gulf War, so the witness spent a lot of his time going round the world to drum up money to pay for it.

A detailed discussion about the legal strategy to be adopted by Government was reviewed. Clearly, the over-riding aim was to minimise the exposure of the Government to financial costs. The options to make the matter go away included the strict instruction not to propose a settlement figure, but to let the lawyers for the haemophiliacs make their amount claim known before anything comes from Government. The case against the Government was considered to be weak, but the case for contesting claims in court was politically weak due to the bad press it would generate. An out of court settlement was seen as the best option, despite the strength of the Government position, but it was still fraught with dangers not least due to setting a new precedent which might open flood-gates to all kinds of other groups who thought it might be worthwhile to go to court and wait for the Government to again resort to a reasonably generous out-of-court settlement for them. Another baseline rule was to never suggest an admission of liability. The need for all people to agree to accept an out-of-court settlement was required, in case “troublemakers” still pursued court action.

Mr Mellor said he still agreed with the assessment as presented. He made a football analogy during his explanation. It never got as specific as actually mentioning Chelsea FC. The preference of some to simply, “let it run on for a bit”, was seen as not a good strategy by Mr Mellor. His view was to just get on with it. He said that many voices in Whitehall worried about setting a precedent, but it was obvious to Mr Mellor that it was easy to demonstrate that the contaminated blood situation was truly different.

It has just been noticed that as Mr Mellor refers to his paper notes, he has to hold them up close to his face to read them, even though he wears glasses. He also has to occasionally ask Counsel to repeat a question because he did not hear it. It seems like the effects of increasing age have not missed Mr Mellor.

It is interesting to note the expectation within Government circles that when proposals and plans are given to lawyers for the plaintiffs (in this case the haemophiliacs), the expectation is of the information becoming a “leak”. Is this attitude still the prevalent one, and does it influence the way the Government continue to defend each and every case, including infected blood?

Mr Mellor said people thought the out-of-court settlement payment plan was a “bold step”, while he thought it was a “sensible step”. He saw it as a reasonable and “right thing to do”. In his opinion, even if a court case was won, the pressure on the Government nevertheless to do something due to public opinion was unavoidable and irresistible. A senior civil servant viewed the proposals back in 1989 as “generous”. The witness reverted to another mini-lesson on how Government works. This particular vignette was about the need to have fall-outs occasionally. There were different interests bidding for a limited pot of public funds and people would be passionate about what should be prioritised. The falling out incidents were part of the process of exploring options and collectively shifting towards the best decision.

Rather than take the usual break, it was agreed to press on to the end of Counsel’s own questions. This would allow the slightly delayed afternoon break to double up as the time for submission of core participants’ questions to Counsel.

Mr Mellor could not answer one question due to it being below his activity level, so he took the time to explain how many of the detailed aspects in Government administration were left to others because usually the role of the Minister is to do the big job then move on to the next big job, leaving the “mess” behind to be the job of others to deal with.

Next came the prospect of transfusion victims also having a claim on any support payments or settlements. This would have a financial impact, of course. Mr Mellor explained how it would require Treasury approval. This is normal since the Treasury wants to know about any spending that goes to something it was not originally intended to be spent on. Further, he stated, “Never express sympathy to anyone – that’s the first rule of being a Treasury Minister”, since those people who had this admission said to them would always drag it back up to get what they wanted.

A hand-written note scribbled below a memo was described by Counsel as potentially a “Yes, Minister” moment since it looked like a case of civil servants who had not been able to convince their Minister of something then turning to the civil servants of another Department to put different pressure on the Minister who needed to be turned so that the civil servants there could achieve their original aim. Mr Mellor smiled and described this type of behaviour as “quite sweet” and being an illustration of how sometimes people did what they had to do to get things moving in the right direction (as they saw it). The witness seemed to have a relaxed sense of these types of situations, saying, “Life’s too short”.

Another snippet on life in politics from Mr Mellor was that you go into Government to do some things that are important to you, and hopefully do a good job with everything else while you are there.

The witness expressed his view that there was no difference if you got a virus from a blood product or from a blood transfusion.

Following the election – which the witness did not see as having any effect on the blood infection issue – Mr Mellor was moved be responsible for heritage, and he became known at the time as the “Minister for Fun”. That concluded any involvement he had with AIDS, contaminated blood, and related litigation or payments.

The final session will be core participant questions.