13 July 2022: Jecock - D
Core participant questions:
On the situation of those who were co-infected as announced by Andrew Lansley, and the “arbitrary” decision not to give Stage 1 co-infected people the same kind of support; she said it was not arbitrary, but to support Stage 1 co-infected people would have made it necessary to support all mono-infected Stage 1 people, which was not affordable. They were trying to be as fair as they could within the money available.
On the departmental line on Irish acceptance of liability; she said their line was based on a previous departmental briefing and some conversations after Lord Archer’s Report. There were talks with Irish colleagues and this seemed to confirm the Government’s understanding. She did not remember campaigners raising the difficulty, but did remember something in Parliament, but not the detail.
On devolved administrations having a governance role, particularly since they contributed to Skipton and Caxton; she said there was a document about how the devolved administrations were to be involved, but she could not remember details.
On the Archer Inquiry being followed by the DH; she said she did not know.
On the officials’ role advising Ministers; she said there would be a gatekeeping role to control what went to Ministers, but that was not what Dr White did.
On parity between the schemes with respect to cut-off dates (i.e. not there for MFT and ET, but there for Skipton); she said she did not recall if there were discussions about that and does not even recall there being a cut-off date for Skipton.
On keeping the CMO up to date with scientific information; she said they would generally send his (or her) secretary the information unless something very specific came up, then it went directly to the CMO.
On occasions when blood policy issues came up in Parliament and if they attended; she said they did.
On knowledge about the Haemophilia Society prior to Archer; she said she probably knew a bit about them, but had not met them.
On her awareness of controversial documents highlighted by the Haemophilia Society within Archer; she said she did not think she knew about these.
On how information that certain document were controversial was alerted to future civil servants; she said there was no specific way other than someone writing something to flag it up and attaching it to the document.
On the Archer recommended group of clinicians and the Haemophilia Society and whether she drafted the Terms of Reference; she said she may have contributed to the ToR, as would Dr White, but did not write them and they most likely had been prepared in consultation.
The Chair had no questions of his own.
The witness spoke to the core participants directly. She said she had met some of them and acknowledged how relations were tricky at times, but she admired their determination and courage at never giving up on having their voices heard. She hoped the outcome of the Inquiry will help people to move on with their lives. (No comment.)
The Chair thanked the witness, noting how she was someone who featured so much in aspects of the Inquiry that it merited her appearance. (No need to comment.)
Comments
Post a Comment