13 July 2022: Jecock - C

The afternoon started with reports of a “stooshie” (a messy fight) when the devolved administrations discovered the UK Government were going to act on their Expert Review, with all the financial consequences involved, without informing them. “I was told not to”, said the witness when asked why. Andrew Lansley was the Minister at the time. It made her uncomfortable, but the concern was that these were different Governments, and the sharing of the information might lead to a leak, and they might have wanted an alternative outcome. They had been involved at earlier stages, and there had been an agreement to work closely together to maintain a UK-wide position, so that understanding added to the witnesses’ discomfort.

There was a (seemingly arbitrary and unnecessary) deadline for applications to the new scheme arrangements which was the end of the financial year (how convenient … for the Government accountants). Consideration was given to patients who might not be in regular contact with the Haemophilia Centres. The UKHCDO database was seen as one way to try to reach people. They thought there might be people registering just in case they were eligible. There might also have been speculative registration attempts, it was thought. Haemophilia Centre were willing to help, but for transfusion patients, the Trusts covering these areas might seek payment for carrying out a search for people. No funded public awareness-raising was done because it would have cost money.

There were also issues about obtaining records, not just those known to be missing (mainly haemophiliacs) but also for others whose records may have been destroyed due to the passage of time (mainly transfusion patients). It seems like the Skipton Fund were left to define the thresholds for evidential eligibility. The witness did not recall there being a review of the criteria, but there were regular meetings to receive reports on performance and statistics on outcomes. The witness asserted that the Appeals Panel worked very hard to help people who were eligible to get the support they were due, including when there was a significant lack of evidence. (Eh, that’s not the recollection on the ground.)

Andrew Lansley made the announcement in 2011. There were financial constraints (yes, yes, yes) and so they made a short deadline to “incentivise” claimants to act swiftly, with their motivation being to get payments made during the then current financial year. Only after that deadline was reached was there to be an announcement of an extension. This is how our Government treated us, not even as children, but as dependent pets responding to a skinner box. It was only 11 years ago. Who do these people think they are? Paternalism is still very much alive and well in the civil service.

Early on The Caxton Foundation sought money to pay people a small regular amount because someone in there obviously had the wherewithal to figure out how much difficulty people were in. Too bad nobody in the Government had thought about doing a proper needs assessment. The Government turned the Caxton application down. (By what authority? Skipton and Caxton were “arms-length bodies”. That sure doesn’t bode well for the recommendations of Robert Francis within his model.)

Ms Jecock sought to be a Trustee on the Caxton Foundation. When asked, she did not see how this might be a problem. It seems like she saw ways she could make governance improvements. Similarly, she saw no issues or conflicts of interest with Charles Lister (“he was an honourable man”) being put forward as a Trustee, even though he had previously been in such a relevant Government role. She never heard concerns being expressed by anyone. (Hearing aid for Jecock.) The witness said that Trustees were appointed on merit by the three founding trustees. On the issue of user Trustees being proposed, the view was that it would pose a conflict of interest. (Was this witness listening to herself? No, she had hearing problems, that’s right.)

Counsel then went on to discuss the independence of the schemes, given that they were registered charities. The witness responded by spouting absolute drivel about how charities work, and how certain she was that the Government did not interfere in their work. They were just interested in knowing what was happening. She mentioned that there were a few people who suggested the Government were controlling the Trusts and Schemes, and maybe even a couple of Trustees, but they were wrong; obviously, because teacher said so.

(This writer wished not to feel the need to make an observation about how the questioning was being led by Counsel but felt compelled. It seemed this topic required a steely and determined standard of investigative questioning. The Government were clearly exposed on these issues, but the poorly framed questions, the unhelpful choice of words, the apparently disorganised thinking, the losing of place and train of thought, was letting the witness off far too lightly. Ms Jecock was talking nonsense at times. She was trying to hold two conflicting positions at the same time. She was getting away with no accountability for her dehumanising decisions and unfeeling untruths. This was not good to watch.)

The financial management approach was reviewed. As with previous witnesses, the Government seemed happy to pretend to the position that they were willing to top-up amounts required to keep supporting people, while not actually letting the organisations know this. So, when the Trustees tried to operate in such uncertainty, and given they were bound by charity law, they went down the route of targeting funds not to everyone, but by means-tested allocations to the most in need and keeping amounts down so that reserves were held to cover future needs. Then they were penalised for holding the reserves. More double-speak from the witness, but with a hint at blaming the Treasury for not allowing more than a year at a time budget, them also not guaranteeing funding for the future, and holding back to see what happened after Penrose. When the Chair tried to pin the witness down, her response was to begin by saying, “It was up to the Trustees”. In her view, to avoid reducing the relied-on regular payments, she thought the grants could take the hit. She then cited the financial constraints, again. Sir Brian asked a key question about the Trustees’ justification for holding the reserves in the face of these constraints, but all the witness did was laugh. She laughed! (It smacked of Christine Lee’s radio interview. Barf.)

Counsel asked if the witness recalled there being discussions about a “moral case” for payments within the DH. She said that if there had been more funding then there was an acknowledged need it could have been used to meet. But there wasn’t the money, she said. So, the need was acknowledged but someone was not prepared to meet it, or in other words, they were willing to let people continue to suffer for a detriment caused by the very body that had the capacity to meet the need if it had the will to do so. (Led by Psychopaths.)

On the issue of charitable need, it was not the approach of the Government to see someone who qualified for a scheme as automatically having a charitable need. On the fact that the Government was the sole resource provider, this was not seen by the witness as an issue which went against the independent charitable operation of the schemes. (Hints of Mandy Rice-Davie – “Well (s)he would, wouldn’t (s)he”.) On informed consent, or lack of it, the witness said this was an important issue but when it came to vCJD, because of the low probability of the potential exposure turning into actual disease, it was not given a distinct consideration.

(There was then the regular break which was also the time for core participant questions to be collated.)