30 June 2022: Hooper - C

The ACVSB (Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood) initially decided not to screen blood while many other countries had gone down that route. It is interesting to notice how experts who come from the same specialism, when their views are compared by their respective countries, the national perspectives can come to different conclusions, even using the same baseline data. How does this square with the pure scientific method? There must be some point when the pure, stand-alone evidence-based drawing of conclusions departs from influence-free interpretative decision-making despite the evidence not being bound by national borders. It is easier to recognise how politicians may be subject to influences such as party lines, constituency needs, vested interests, personal prejudices, media scrutiny, or other forces that concentrate the mind in a certain direction. But for scientists it is supposed to be a cleaner, more virtuous matter of seeing the facts and dispassionately responding to them. Certainly, peer reviews are commonly not restricted to the original national location for the study. Exceptions to any appearance of expert judgement involving criteria beyond the raw data may be down to factors such as the potential financial gains from a commercial venture they are involved in, or academic prowess. Not for the first time, the Covid-19 parallels are unavoidable.

Counsel took the witness through the steps involved in moving from not screening for HCV antibodies to introducing that screening. The ACVBS was at the core of this, and Baroness Hooper was the Minister who had to respond. Once again, there were conspicuous references to costs, with fiscal factors appearing to carry at least as much commensurate weight as the public health considerations. It was another case of unexplained delays in progressing the eventual decision to screen. The witness recognised her role in pushing on, but she would need to have been told there was a problem of tardiness. The witness seemed to recall an issue with financial issues being raised, and that might have caused some hold-ups – there’s no surprise whatever. It was certainly the case that the preferred funding model for this activity was new, and maybe it needed time to bed in. Counsel re-visited all the circumstances related to the introduction of screening, in particular the delays, and sought for the witness to reflect on whether this should have been done differently (i.e. more swiftly). While agreeing that “it should have all happened more quickly”, the witness referenced the recent John Major evidence to illustrate the other issues taking up the Government’s time, including the Gulf War.

In her statement, Gloria Hooper sought to ensure that Government advisers were not simply the easy target for taking the blame for things not being done right. She also reflected on the lack of her personal engagement with infected and affected people and thought that perhaps this should have happened after all. She thinks she would have “valued” those insights.

The day was moving towards an earlier than expected ending. For the mental health of all those concerned, not least those watching, that was probably for the best. So, it’s core participant questions to come, then an early finish.