27 June 2022: Major - A

Sir John Major attracted more lawyers, more members of the press, and more core participants in person to watch the show than any witness in a long time, perhaps since the start of the Inquiry. Will all this interest be worth it, or will the same lawyers have coached into the witness the “memories” of what was uncontroversial, and coached out the “recollections” of anything culpable? What do you think?

His was a typical CV of a senior parliamentarian – but there are so few of them, can these career pathways ever be typical? Time in the Dept of Health and Social Security gave the witness responsibility for disability; oh, the irony. His role did not involve him in health matters, but when there were regular gatherings of the DHSS Ministerial Team, he could not remember if infected blood was ever discussed. His short term at the Foreign Office ended when Mrs Thatcher needed a new Chancellor at short notice. Sir John fitted the bill, not least due his stint as Chief Secretary to the Treasury; a role designated as “junior” but in reality, one which wielded great power, financially, (and is any other power other than financial of any significant, probably not). Despite being a member of the “Star Chamber” which controlled all Government spending, the witness stressed that his job was not to automatically say “No” to everyone. They had to make sure that Departments could not spend more than the tax take could take. But they also had to make sure the monies had been spent in the relevant tax year, too. The ultimate arbiter over money issues when the Treasury does not permit a Minister to have what he asks for is the Prime Minister. Can you imagine Sajid J or Liz T going to Boris for a bung (no, not that kind)? The big point he wanted everyone to remember was that they were not dealing with the Government’s money, but the Taxpayers’ money. Like we needed reminding.

The sum total of what all the Departments had “bid for” was always more than the country could afford. There were times when the contingency could be dipped into, but basically, Departments were in competition with each other. Some Ministers were better than others at getting what they wanted. The witness remembered how the most difficult Ministers to deal with were those from the Territories.

The first “big reveal” of the day was that a letter ascribed to him which seemed to be resisting giving money to haemophiliacs infected by contaminated blood, was actually written by John Moore (the wrong JM). However, due to erroneous reporting in the press, Sir John has often been considered as the miser. However, apparently Mr Moore was not a miser either because he had sympathy for the plight of infected people. He said so to his JM namesake. But more than feeling sympathy, he/they did not want to set a precedent. The desire to not set a precedent seems always to override any consideration of the validity of the case for support.

A letter from Rev Tanner of the Haemophilia Society again highlighted the role of HIV/AIDS in bringing the matter of contaminated blood to the fore. A few precocious people had been raising concerns about blood-borne viruses, but HIV forced the issue on to the table, almost as an inconvenient truth before the wider and already live issue of viral infections had picked up steam or before the Government had worked out how to avoid having to pay out anything. The witness assured Counsel that John Moore might have appeared unsympathetic, but he was simply being a good Cabinet Minister who would not go against the established Government line. How nice of the witness to seek to bolster the good name of a now departed colleague. How convenient to seek to salvage a reputation by hinting at him/them having a beating heart of human concern, but that went for nothing (or not much) if you were a Minister; and while people suffered and died.

Other correspondence indicated a growing awareness that while the legal case was seen to be favourable to the Government, there was expected to be a growing case for that position not being sustainable politically. So, while beginning to recognise what looked like an inevitable moral case for some future time, the strong desire was to avoid setting a precedent (that again). Sir John wanted to make sure people did not think the Prime Minister was being “beastly” about not supporting people who had an increasingly valid case, albeit a moral case. He said there was a general shift within the Cabinet towards wanting to help, but the Government was and still is an entity in itself. There was the old chestnut of them having to potentially give money to one deserving group at the expense of another deserving group. Just because he says it in a classically gentle John Major voice does not mean that it does not grate to hear it again. So in case you have not realised it yet, they were all actually quite good people who had sympathy for the unfortunate, but unfortunately their hands were tied by the very slow-to-turn-round Government tanker.

As Sir John continued to assert his kindly credentials, he misread the room by describing what happened to people a “bad luck”. He did his best not to acknowledge the audible incredulity to his crass comment which came from those in the room. He slightly hinted at a missed opportunity by the Health Department at not being prepared to respond more positiely to the letters from the Haemophilia Society, but then immediately gave them an “out” by saying that at the time it was probably due to the rapid onset of AIDS. There was also some suggestion that a ”no-fault compensation” fix was not the only circumstance. In fact, while there may not have been a legal liability, a degree of “fault” was being recognised, but only in their internal communications.

Counsel raised the wording of some documents which made it look like the Government reputation was of more importance than the need, despite what Mr Major wanted to establish as the dominant narrative. But even then, the first concern was to “ring-fence” any support scheme very tightly, to avoid precedence which could be picked up by other causes. The desire was to target money to actual need, which seemed to have no acknowledgement for actual losses. So, as long as any support kept people just at the poverty line, that would be their responsibility met. The discussions were about credit going to the Government for doing a good thing. They wanted to get some kudos for their miserly crumbs falling from the table. Yes, there were tight-fisted “hawks” on the Cabinet, and they might have had a natural aversion to spending money, regardless of how deserving an individual case might merit.

The move to create a no-fault scheme was unprecedented. It was suggested that other Ministers might have had a mind on them facing other groups who were relevant to their responsibilities who could try to jump on any support to the haemophiliacs. “We knew the non-haemophiliacs were going to infest us” he helpfully described as thinking at the time. He made it sound like he was doing the haemophiliacs a favour by protecting their money from others who might try to jump on a band-wagon. “Once we had broken the dam,” described the witness, of allowing for no-legal fault payments to one group, others might be hard to resist, and it might result in public or legal reviews of decisions to treat others similarly. So, £10million was earmarked to come from the contingency. The witness rejected the idea that it was the smallest amount the Government thought they could get away with. It was certainly far short of what the Haemophilia Society were seeking. The Chair asked where the amount of £10million came from – how it was worked out – but Counsel said she would need to check if there were any workings.

Time for a coffee and comfort break. This writer cannot help wondering if this witness still tucks his shirt into his underpants (if he ever did). It’s too bad Norma is not around to reveal the truth (or Edwina).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

26 July 2023: Sunak - A

25 July 2023: Dunn - B

17 November 2022: Panel on finding the undiagnosed - A