27 June 2022: Major - B

The focus of evidence shifted to the time when Sir John was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By this time the £10million had led to the establishment of the Macfarlane Trust. The next big (-ish) injection (of money) was a call for a further £20million. The witness expected that the main players on this once it had come out of the DHSS would have been Norman Lamont and Margaret Thatcher. Mrs Thatcher had by then met with the Haemophilia Society. Internal documents again stressed the idea of keeping costs to a minimum, again with apparently no overriding concern for the people harmed. A Treasury official had, or assumed, the temerity to state that there was not the level of knowledge related to infection of haemophiliacs with AIDS, despite what the Inquiry has established. The witness would expect there was some reason for the official saying such a thing.

A phrase ascribed to Mrs Thatcher was described by the witness as “clumsy” wording (by whomsoever scribed her words). He assumed the reference to it being a “political” matter. They appeared to even try to be avoiding conceding a moral obligation but preferring to describe the haemophiliacs as a “special case”. Again, it was a case of not setting a precedent, hence the focus on an “ex gratia” payment; with all that implies or does not imply. By this stage the HIV litigation was well underway. Documents illustrated the detailed consideration of the pros and cons of either continuing to fight the legal case, or propose to settle out-of-court, or other options. The “cons” were in the usual terms of financial exposure, precedent, political expediency, etc. There was no reference to the need of people. The witness explained that it was the role of the Treasury to speak on behalf of the merits of never spending public money wherever it can get away with it. In this case, he said the circumstances overtook any such normal protective behaviour by the Treasury and so the monies had to be released.

These events were occurring in the context of wider political matters which would result in Sir John becoming Prime Minister soon thereafter. There was a brief evidential foray into the way papers get to the PM (the great majority never do due to the sheer amount of stuff).

There followed some correspondence from William Waldegrave who was by then at Health. The discussions raise somewhat of a potential conspiracy theory mindset. It looks like the most senior lawyers back then were working together behind the scenes to cut a deal. Without wishing to cast any aspersions on people involved in the current processes or to promote a troublesome agenda, it is nonetheless concerning to gain an insight into how these things work away from the public gaze. Basically, the proposal coming from the haemophiliacs’ lawyers was too good an opportunity to miss, as the Government saw it. Maybe rather than indulging in easily deniable speculation, it illustrates the way the sides separately have to work out a strategy to take into a negotiation seeking to maximise their respective interests, then actually taking that to the other to see if a deal can indeed be worked out. The role of lawyers both to take instructions and to give advice is a balancing act. All of these factors demonstrate how practitioners of the Law require a high degree of skill not only in debate, argument, and presentation, but also in game theory.

The plan was to get the plaintiffs’ (haemophiliacs’) lawyers to confirm their clients’ agreement with their own lawyers’ proposal before an announcement was made Parliament. However, William Waldegrave then sought to make an immediate announcement. The witness thought it was very likely this switch was due to the risk of a leak occurring. Sir John made a comment about the difficulties related to leaks as a major problem for Government, for example, if the leak was incomplete. Then there was a interjection on the dates, with Sir John mentioning how he was only 14 days into his Premiership. He was very caught up in preparations for the Gulf War, so was spending a lot of time in the US speaking with President Bush, and with this issue being very unavoidably pressing.

So, with Thatcher and Clarke gone from the key positions, the new world of Major and Waldegrave seemed to have allowed a shift towards reaching a settlement. But Sir John felt that were Mrs Thatcher still in her post, she might well have listened to the arguments and agreed with the decision which the new brooms ended up making. Counsel brought up references in his autobiography to “tolerance” versus the “shrill and censorious” voices in the Cabinet. He was not thinking of Mrs Thatcher as one of those voices, despite her “Iron Lady” reputation. The witness agreed that his predecessor did have some “hawkish” views, but not on this matter. He cited her appointing him to Social Security because it was where she had started. That little meander into the hidden soft side of Mrs T may well be the focus of the evening news reports. If it does cause a distraction away from the real issues for infected and affected people, then rather than being a fond recollection of a former close colleague, it would be no better than one of the dead cats Boris Johnson might throw on to the table to force people to look away from what they don’t want us to see. Maybe.

As the witness leaves the hearing room to enjoy some lunch, it is unmistakable to observe not only his accompanying advisers, but also his security detail. Once a PM, always a target.