20 May 2022: Patten - D

Sex is one of those words which demands attention. It is said that whenever a tabloid newspaper has the word “sex” in the front-cover headline, then that particular edition sells more copies compared with other days. However, in a Margaret Thatcher-led Cabinet Meeting, s-e-x was obviously off the agenda (unless you were a major currie connoisseur).

Apparently, it takes all types when you sample a population, but the tension between the prudish and the permissive came to a head over the response of the nation, as seen through the Government of the day, to the AIDS virus. It was not “the done thing” to speak while in polite company, or even in many families, about physical intimacy, especially its less traditional versions. It is easy to poke fun at the moral mainstream, particularly when an “anything goes” message had been sweeping the West (at least) since at least the swinging sixties. But surely it was possible to maintain personal standards without resorting to prejudice and name-calling. Yet that was the experience of so many people, on both sides of the spectrum, and not least those who received bloodstuffs from the NHS in the reasonable expectation of being made better, not worse. When it affects the national response through the Government, it was never going to be a happy outcome. Not worrying too much about offending “a few gays” may also have opened the door to not worrying too much about putting infected people and their families into truly intolerable situations. The impacts of stigma have not been fully explored, it is suggested, yet it caused some of the most horrific impacts on plainly innocent people; and that is not to suggest that those whose infection route was different were not innocent too. Sometimes it seems that these clinicians, officials, and politicians just don’t get it. They just don’t.

Anyway, it is once again over to core participants’ questions:

On the Galbraith letter, and with reference to the statements of other witness, how would the particular views of Dr Walford be treated: He said that even though it was before his time, he would definitely expect her expert views to be given due weight.

On the production of a leaflet for donors in comparison to recipients such as haemophiliacs: He said both documents ought to have been progressed with equal emphasis, although given the delays in leaflet production as discussed, that might be more of a hope. It would have helped.

On the arrangements for a Ministerial Statement to be lodged before 24 hours so that it appears on the Order Paper for the next day: He said it should be done that way and people were usually very anxious to achieve that.

Sir Brian asked about the statement in Parliament where he made a mistake in announcing that a screening test was expected to be available in a few weeks, but in actuality the few weeks period was just the start of an evaluation process of a potential screening test. The Chair wanted to know how that mistake could have happened: He thinks it was the conflation of two bits of information that he mixed up when answering an unexpected question.

Lord Patten, in conclusion, gave a personal statement that it is simply wrong that it took so long to set up the Inquiry and reflects a major problem with the systems in the country. Secondly, he wanted to thank the Inquiry for the way it was going about its work, and the people watching, indeed the whole of the infected and affected community to whom he expressed his heartfelt sympathy and acknowledged how it was truly sobering to consider what has happened.