30 June 2022: Hooper - B

The crux of the matter of not generally providing support to infected people – even though for the haemophiliacs the new infections were “superimposed” on them, and so becoming a “double-whammy” – was the concern over making sure those in the ring-fence were not detrimented by that money, which was meant exclusively for them as a special case, being diluted by others’ (less deserving) claims. How noble-thinking of the Government. And all the while we thought it was just a cost-saving exercise. The witness acknowledged the difficulties with drawing a line, because there will always be those who fall just on the wrong side of that line. The special case of haemophiliacs was challenged, and perhaps legally and logically it was right to do so, but “that was the line and there had to be a line”. The witness recognised the relative immunity from pressure which was enjoyed in the Lords compared to the Commons where backbenchers and their constituents would put pressure on Ministers there. Baroness Hooper was not in favour of making any further payments, but she was overruled by Waldegrave and Bottomley. The hoopoe is a bird with a prominent crown, but it turns out the Hooper is more of a hawk. She said she never met anyone in Government who was “unsympathetic” on this issue (and we assume she includes herself in this), but they had to give it a lot of serious and thorough consideration – and lest we forget, there were lots of other things going on at the same time to keep people busy. In hindsight, the witness can see how the timescales were quite long, but with a sigh she admitted she maybe should have been more aware of time slippage in responding.

As Counsel shifted towards testing, he felt the need to quickly review the basics of that subject. The uncertain-sounding agreement to this summary suggested the witness may not have been on top of the information (now or then, perhaps) or just looked a bit lost.

The composition of one of the key committees advising the witness was reviewed (Zuckerman, Tuddenham, et al.) She did not have any concerns about the membership. They advised on some very significant matters related to blood safety and virological risks. Counsel referred to a Thatcher aphorism, “Advisors advise, Ministers decide”. The witness agreed with this since it is a basic tenet of democracy so that if politicians get their decisions wrong, they can be voted out (but not the advisers, it seems).

Counsel began to ask about how Ministerial decisions were arrived at when technical experts such as medical and academic professionals were involved – using the analogy of it being a journey to a destination. Baroness Hooper was not alone in finding that particular line of questioning confusing. On realising the struggles of the witness, Counsel resorted to suggesting answers to his own questions and asking the witness if she agreed it was a fair assessment. As a non-lawyer, this writer nevertheless feels like Counsel is leading the witness towards a pre-conceived narrative, and the “maybe”, “hmm”, and “I think so” type answers to these questions seems to confirm this. The point Counsel was making appeared to be that there is a great reliance, maybe an over-reliance, on the closed-room discussions and recommendations of these expert-laden advisory groups, without anyone outside the group getting to appreciate the degree of any diversion of opinions, concerns or acknowledged risks which might have influenced whether the decision-maker took the advice or put more weight on a particular nuance of the discussions.

As an example, Professor Zuckerman had spoken to a paper covering a cost-benefit analysis for testing of blood products. One of the contributors had recommended the value of initiating testing, despite the shortcomings, until a better test was available. From that meeting minute, the Chair of the group had summarised the discussion but left out the contribution which highlighted an inconsistency based on a previous approach to testing. Counsel made the point that it meant there could be what he called a “flattening out” of the reporting of these kinds of meetings which were providing very important recommendations. The witness agreed, having already referred to the recent case of Covid-19 where there appeared to have been a televised balancing act going on between expert advice and decisions derived therefrom.

Another maybe meaningless, maybe telling, moment happened when Counsel asked a question and the witness asked, “Does that come up in my witness statement?” Surely a trained lawyer and skilled politician would remember what she had included in her own witness statement. We assume she was closely involved in writing any statement with her name at the top, and that it was not simply handed to her. The witness appeared to be flagging which was unfortunate timing since the evidence at that point was quite technical, being related to testing. It looked like the player on the pitch would welcome the half-time whistle.

To test, or not to test, that was the question. Whether ‘twas nobler in the mind to suffer the infection and death of a few people rather than upset the feelings of some vocal others and call it outrageous fortune, and by opposing end them, … who knows? (Time for lunch, methinks.)