28 June 2022: Bottomley - B

Time for some flagrant name-dropping. During the morning break this writer sat with Hugh Pym (BBC Chief Health Correspondent) alongside one of the higher-profile campaigners. The last time we saw Mr Pym at the Inquiry, it was the day before a new health scare was possibly about to break; something called Coronavirus – now preferably referred to as Covid-19. It was swiftly going to become yet another newsworthy (and better option, maybe) health story which caused further ignoring of what was happening with the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS and the biggest public inquiry anywhere in the world (Superlatives-R-Us but nobody is listening). That was over two years ago. How time flies when you’re not having fun.

Counsel referred back to a previous proviso comment from the witnesses’ that her memory was almost non-existent with regard to the detail of what happened, and had to rely on the papers sent by the Inquiry. She embellished this with how she does usually remember the people. What a humanity affirming admission. She did recall how she was under oath and would be truthful (where she could be, we assume). The almost exactly expressed wording of this recollection-reduced pre-qualification from Government witnesses is such a coincidence, that it cannot be a coincidence. It sounds just like another “line to take” given to Government witnesses by Government lawyers – but that would never happen, would it?

While responding to a question, the Baroness almost expressed how she was not bothered by public opinion, but she quickly back-tracked from a potential mis-speaking banana skin to describe it as her being a bit different from most other politicians when it came to the weight she gave to public opinion when she thought she was doing the right thing. Shortly thereafter, the witness was again moved to adjust her answer “on the hoof” when speaking about people who get involved in campaigning. She was obviously thinking on her feet (as she sat there) and realised the risk of not reading the room adequately, by inserting a comment that campaigners “change the world”.

Whilst acknowledging the evidence of John Major to the contrary, the Baroness said it was her view that anyone in the Treasury was “a brute”, “an adversary”, and they were “not to be trusted for a minute”. She felt she had spent much of her more vigorous efforts in fighting against the Treasury for resources. The topic had returned to the situation the Government faced related to shifting the position of not providing either compensation or other monies to people infected with AIDS through their NHS treatment. She described the “awful dilemma” of seeing a need for something terrible which would justify spending, against the need to protect the public purse, including by not setting an expensive precedent. The witness resisted any temptation to disrespect Ken Clarke as a barrier to making payments. She reverted to describing his style as rambunctious and argumentative, but he was one who would shift his position once he had been convinced of the alternative view. The Baroness expressed the self-reflective view that she was not a very good politician, given some of the ways politicians had to operate which did not work for her.

As the situation related to the HIV Litigation had shifted to considering options for concluding that matter, including the out-of-court, no-fault (eventually), no compensation, no liability stipulation, etc. list of underpinning prerequisites, the actual amounts of money discussion was revisited. Despite the sums possibly sounding large at the time, it was not really a great amount and the witness acknowledged how it would not cover costs for the rest of peoples’ lives. Mrs Thatcher had gone on to describe the eventual support scheme arrangements as “a victory”, but the Baroness did not see it that way. She considered that the efforts to avoid setting a precedent had been successful. She got on to additional and potentially shakier ground by speculating about the nature of campaigners and the extent to which they were actual infected people, or were others with some kind of associated interest. The anticipated unease coming from the room must have been felt by the witness as her voice trailed off.

The issue of benefits being disregarded for receipt of the financial support scheme payments was held up by the witness as a positive thing. Given that she had just recognised the middle and long-term inadequacy of the support on offer, she must have thought it was perfectly reasonable for the benefits system to fill the gap between need and available resources. How completely lacking in knowledge of the real world these people clearly are, yet they control the finances and supports which so many people rely on. A perfect storm of ill-informed and largely privileged people making politically driven decisions with some deference to evidence (so long as it supports their view), but with a bigger weight being given to the opinions of readers of one or two tabloid rags.

The favourite trope where Governments bemoan the hard decisions they have to make involving choosing to supporting one group of needy people but not another one, was given another tired airing. Mrs Bottomley sought to re-emphasise their claim to unpalatable decision-making difficulties incumbent on politicians by referring those following her evidence to the quiver in her voice as she was speaking about this from the witness stand. This writer never noticed any wobble. VB is such a stoic professional, clearly. She asked for everyone to really believe her sincerity in recognising the difficulties infected people had faced and do face, and how this added to the decisive difficulty because above all they needed to avoid that precedent thing. In case there was any doubting her genuineness, not for the first time she brought up the case of a friend who was dying of AIDS as a young father.

Officials had failed to reach a consensus on what to do (primarily, it was a case of agreeing how much money to allocate, or not). This led to another plea by Mrs Bottomley to anyone listening seeking everyone to believe her that all the civil servants involved were always careful, considered, sympathetic and genuinely caring. She said it was a principled and emotional response. This all harked back to English Literature classes. It was Queen Gertrude from Shakespeare’s play Hamlet who made the observation which might well apply in this case, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

“We were acting on legal advice, I assume” was a telling insight from the witness to the way views were becoming settled. The Justice Ognall unprecedented intervention was again referenced, and while it was not what was initially supported as a way to respond, in a short time thereafter it would prove to be largely adopted anyway. “This was a very difficult decision,” said the witness, and not for the first time (or second, or third, …)