27 June 2022: Major - C

Counsel wanted to focus next on the situation related to non-haemophiliac HIV infectees. Sir John noted that in responses to MP letters, he was sticking to the Government line, but he admitted that it was being discussed as potentially needing to be changed. Mr William Chapman, one of the senior civil servants, was recalled as being particularly concerned about the increasingly untenable Government position. A letter from Neil Kinnock had asked PM Major to move to support non-haemophiliacs. Ex-PM Major said he could not disagree with what the then Leader of the Opposition was advocating for. Mr Chapman’s advice indicated his view that expanding the support arrangements was inevitable. The witness commented that, “It is better to do something right before you are forced into doing it.” But Mr Major, if it was right to address that particular issue back then (1992), why in the 30 years since then was so much else that was “right” not done until the Government was forced? Asked about the slowness of response even back then, he merely suggested how it could probably have been a little quicker, but still he qualified that admission by saying how people were busy with many other matters.

For someone who was never directly involved in the relevant policy areas, on occasion the witness spoke with what demonstrated a sense of him feeling able to speak with a degree of authority on the subject, even using some of the correct terminology. Further justifying the initial response of rejecting the idea of providing support to people infected with viral Hepatitis, he cited the fact, as far as he was aware, that most other countries did not respond with financial support for the group. So? On reflection Sir John stated, “I’ve never been entirely certain if we did the right thing about Hepatitis C”. This thought only came about as the witness reviewed the papers in preparation for appearing at the Inquiry. This admission may be an exception to the rule which says “Better late than never”.

The expertise on these matters lay with the Department of Health said the witness. Counsel then posted a document from DH with advice to the PM which stated apparent facts which are/were questionable. He did not want to comment on the hypothetical possibility that this type of advice might not have been backed up with received wisdom at the time, but he would expect any such advice would have been properly informed by reference to relevant experts. When asked about refusing to meet with a delegation on these matters, the witness justified this by saying there was nothing new to say because the position had not changed.

The infamous letter appearing to suggest the witness thought people should go to the Lottery for support was robustly defended as a mis-representation which did not explain how the comments had been originated in response to a specific question. He recalled how this was presented at the start of the Inquiry by one of the people presenting an introductory statement, and it caused him to return to his papers.

Having previously commented negatively on others’ choice of words, Counsel took the witness back to his references of what happened to people as “bad luck”. Sir John said he was glad to return to the matter, given the earlier response of the attending audience. He attempted to clarify his meaning, but the explanation did not seem to convince the spectators. He was then asked about why there had not been an Inquiry earlier. He said it was never brought to his attention, which resulted in another audience response, albeit more muted, as people looked at each other wondering what so many of them had been up to for the past 10, 20, 30, 0r more years. He must think that if he says something just was how he says it was, then we will simply nod and accept that unquestioningly. He’s wrong.

Wow, and wow again. Counsel asked a question, but the witness refused to answer because of how it might be used against him. Can he do that?

He was asked how good Governments are at acknowledging errors. He said they were mostly not good at saying they got it wrong. Similarly, on the matter of learning from situations when things go wrong, he went on a ramble about the problems of people moving on from their jobs and taking their experiences with them. Having a former Prime Minister as a witness, Counsel took the opportunity to ask about transparency and candour. As was surely expected, Sir John said all the right things on these topics, which in effect was nothing very useful. Sometimes being frank at the time of a mistake or problem, is not helpful, for example, in case it causes a panic. That’s sometimes, but a bit of frankness, for example when giving oral evidence to a public inquiry, is surely on of the not sometimes.

John Major was being given the opportunity to redeem himself as an elder statesman by opening up with insights which would be helpful to the Inquiry, even if they might be uncomfortable for himself or others to admit to or reveal. He didn’t take that opportunity. Why so? Maybe pride, arrogance, cowardice, old-boys loyalty, sheer lack of self-reflection, or something else. (Answers on a postcard to …)

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