31 March 2022: Perry - A

Dr Perry is/was a Qualified Person, one of those who were to make sure chemical processes were up to standard and fit for purpose. Most recently, he has been on the consultant track with a European and global sphere of influence.

He was a serial contributor to the Penrose Inquiry (I use the word Inquiry begrudgingly when it follows the name Penrose). Dr Perry was then a serial live witness to that Inquiry; again led by him who should not not be named (rather, he should be called out). He also had some input to the Scottish Government investigation, but not directly; likewise the HIV litigation.

Everything that happens in a production environment can have an impact on product quality, so should all be monitored. That was a key part of his role. When joining the PFC, it was his first experience of fractionation environments. There was no particular induction process, rather it was on-the-job learning (a bit like bad sex education, caught not taught).

There was no denial of the poor relations between Watt (Scotland boss man) and Lane (England boss man). The relationship between Watt and Cash (a different Scottish boss man) was occasionally robust but certainly functional, according to Dr Perry. Watt was summed up as innovative while Cash was seen as a strong leader.

The Scottish laboratory situation did not have a specific person to lead on quality. It was a collective responsibility. Things changed once Crown Immunity was removed. Then they also had to obtain licences. We should ask Prince Andrew if he is still covered by Crown Immunity.

The R&D department led by Dr Foster was quite independent. He and Dr Perry worked closely together and while R&D operated relatively independently, Dr P was aware of what was going on. (Note: the Common Services Agency, CSA, was the former name of NHS Nation Services Scotland, who oversaw the whole of "transfusion medicine". Coincidentally, NSS is now the location within which we find the SIBSS.)

The access of PFC staff to Haemophilia Centre Directors was "limited" but Dr Perry would not describe it as "limited" ... say what? Everything went through the Regional Transfusion Centres (RTCs), so there was little (ie. limited) opportunity to understand how PFC products were being used at the coal face and how clinicians and patients saw them.

Dr Perry thought that FVIII was only ever used in a Haemophilia setting ... but we know different, don't we. Ask certain post-partum women.

The building was only five years old, yet it attracted negative reporting by inspectors. Dr Perry put this down to cost-cutting resulting in corner-cutting during the actual construction. So, it was inadequate from the day they cut the ribbon. Dr Perry's appointment could be seen as a response to the original Medicines Inspectorate report, but by the next inspection there was still lots to be done, even with quality issues.

The Crown Immunity setup was seen as convenient to the SHHD, but was not welcomed by Dr Perry and other colleagues. It basically allowed the PFC to operate unregulated, without licensing, and in a building that was compromised in its construction. What a mess.

However, there was an unhappy response to something stated by Prof Cash, in that they said he was "misrepresenting" the state of the PFC. They appeared to be walking a very thin line between having their own concerns about the setup and pushing for improvements, while also providing rebuttals to negative comments by others (in case it reflected badly on their personal professional competencies). The staffing issues - ie. wanting to be on a continuous shift-pattern arrangement but not being allowed to by the Whitley regulations - meant that the entire facility never lived up to its potential to deliver a manufacturing process optimally operated without the daily stop/starts involved in a strict 9 to 5 working day.

Many key people bemoaned the situation of them effectively being managed by a committee at the CSA. Prof Cash, for example, would have preferred to have line management responsibilities. He sought to overcome this by his consultative approach when with the RTCs and other bodies, including the PFC.

A brief overview of the main PFC products over the years included the now familiar letter/number combinations, including the dodgy research implicated Z8. SHHD oversaw collective activities through such organs as meetings chaired by Prof Ludlum (him again!). Others in the rogues gallery included Bell, Keel, Forrester, etc. There were known to be disagreements between Prof Cash and the SHHD. It was noted how much SHHD policy mirrored that of the DHSS. This impacted on the ability of Scottish leaders to influence policy direction. They were often left to using forums of UK peers as an alternative route to achieve policy change.