19 July 2022: MacNiven - A

Trigger notice: the witness is wearing a striped shirt with a spotted tie. (… Just saying.) He stood assertively with scripture in hand in front of the desk to take the oath. Mr MacNiven came straight from university into the civil service. His whole career has been in public service, almost exclusively covering Scotland apart from a period as a forestry commissioner covering the whole UK. The accent is posh East coast (?), and increasingly his style of answering was to include a “sing-songy” bounciness. He had looked straight at Sir Brian with a broad smile when the Chair came in, and this grinning continued until after the formalities were completed. It was as if he was seeking to cartch the eye of an old school chum. A penchant for flowery language sprinkled with Latin didn’t take long to emerge, (… so it was hey nonny-nonny, per se, etcetera, etc.)

The witness had given three statements to the Penrose Inquiry and had appeared three times in person. It was anticipated by this writer and others based on these past performances, that it would be a mercy for him only to feature once in this Inquiry. So, seatbelts were firmly fixed in preparation for a day trip with a sickly smarmy driver at the wheel since the temptation might be to bale at the first set of traffic lights.

Unusually, due to a Covid risk, Counsel was asking the questions by remote. Prior to devolution, the witness spoke about a growing list of powers given over to Scotland to manage. The Scottish Office (Tier 1) was broken up into four (or five) departments, including the Scottish Home and Health Department (SHHD) (Tier 2). There was a Secretary for each (Tier 3), and under that an Assistant Secretary was Tier 4 which was the witnesses’ level. He led the fourth division in the fourth level. The smaller overall system meant there were collections of responsibilities more generalised than would have operated in Westminster.

A chronological list of key officials was displayed, including the Chief Medical Officers, but the witness mainly worked with the Deputy CMOs, including Ken Calman. There seemed to be a fuss-pot interest in status, roles, and titles. The smiley reflection about how long a passage of time had passed (35 years to be exact) was affecting the witnesses’ ability to recall things; with a shaking of the head and a look to the ceiling for emphasis. (A case of “belt and braces” asserting, perhaps.) It did not go unnoticed the frequent references to colleagues by their pet names – Rob, Bob, Archie, etc. – with a sense of it being a men (or boys’) club. In answer to a question about a colleague, Dr Forrester, he described him in a way which hinted at a spectrum personality. Time would have to tell if that aside would be significant or accurate, or perhaps not.

When Counsel referred to the Common Service Agency, the witness corrected him by saying it was “Services” (the CSA); it provided more than one service. So, it seems his recollections will continue to be all or nothing. The CSA, “holding company”, was a creature of the 1978 Act specifically designed to deliver at the Scotland level on issues such as the blood transfusion service, beyond the territorial health boards; of which there were either 14 or 15. Mr MacNiven’s emphasis on precision extended to his diction and articulation, especially with the Latin flourishes. The witnesses’ role included a very broad range of responsibilities, including oversight of the CSA. He noted how the Assistant Secretary operated at a fairly senior level (no self-aggrandisement detected … not), so there was not really a hands-on operational requirement It was more that of monitoring and managing at a supervisory level. He had five branches with over 40 staff working for him. The medical officials had less of a wide-spread set of responsibilities, allowing them to use their clinical training and experience, but not always covering their health delivery or research specialism.

“It’s 35 years ago” he said as he answered a question, reminding everyone in case they had forgotten over the 35 minutes since he first said it. He did not have a lasting memory of slow responses or inefficiency. This was the type of way he deflected any pointedness to some of Counsel’s questions. Another was to question the question, as in, “It depends on what you mean by policy”, when asked about how hard or easy it was to challenge or change pre-existing policy. He said he left it to Counsel to define “policy” (… how generous, and how civil servanty of him).

As Mr MacNiven was asked about what was sent up to Ministers or not. He said it was not a fixed process. It varied with the subject and the Ministers. He cited Michael Forsyth as a particularly “energetic and involved” Minister, who expected to have a better handle on matters under his purview, and to make more decisions himself. The fact of Mr Forsyth appearing the next day in no way smacked of sycophancy. Me MacNiven himself had the main role in deciding what went to Ministers (and he couldn’t resist mentioning how often he got those calls right), but metaphorically speaking the doors were always open. Literally, the doors were not open due to the “ill-discipline” of people who would talk when they walked down the corridor. (No talking in the corridor, boy. And get your hands out of your pockets. Straighten your tie. What kind of school do you think I am the Headmaster of laddie?)

The witness had a good working relationship with colleagues, subordinates, and bosses (.. that might need to be fact checked). But this was somewhat hampered by the requirement for some people to be in London while others were in Edinburgh. The detail of people’s, for example Simon Glenarthur’s, experience as a useful asset to the DHHS, were hard to recall, after all it was 35 years ago. (Yes, we got that Mr Mac.) Counsel asked about any steps to ensure Ministers in the Scottish Office got the same information and updates as those in Westminster. The key concern seemed to be to ensure the Ministers avoided embarrassment. He gave an example of plasma which might have been infectious and what to do with it as something to be collectively aware of. “We being Scots” did not want to waste “the stuff” but did not want to put the public at risk either. At the suggestion there might have been times when the Department of Health (DH) in London may have tried to influence what the witness put or did not put to their Ministers. Not for the first time, Mr MacNiven re-stated the question back to Counsel with an elevated voice, suggesting incredulity at the suggestion embedded in the question. He could have just said “No”.

He said John Cash was “outstandingly useful”, “distinguished”, and an “extremely competent” man as a specialist consultant. On the flow of information, both sought and unsought, he said it was open such as when someone who was advising Government may have attended a meeting on UK matters which might be useful in their opinion to pass on to Scottish colleagues. As Counsel quoted from the witnesses’ written statement in preparation for asking a question, the witness took the opportunity to get up from his chair to get the water jug and refill his glass. He could have leaned over from his wheeled seated position, but for his own reasons he opted for the more observable course. This writer would not wish to speculate on any apparently pompous self-importance which might be being displayed by the witness, like a male peacock strutting his stuff, so he will resist that temptation and not speculate.