20 July 2022: Forsyth - A

Michael Bruce Forsyth, it is “nice to see you, to see you nice”, (well, we hope it is). His political career was from a base in Stirling. He covered a number of Ministerial posts, significantly these included various levels of responsibility for Scottish affairs. The witness had a special pleading about not having been supplied with the documents with his notations on them. For this reason, he thought he would struggle to recollect much of the detail linked to the issues to be raised. (There’s that rider again.) He wondered if these versions of the document had been destroyed, which he clearly felt as frustrating since it does not help his “small brain”. He assumed documents of this type were kept. He also mentioned how he had a recent meeting with the Scottish Government and was surprised to see that no minutes were kept. From his time as a Minister, he was certain the very competent civil servants did keep minutes. He was eventually unseated as the MP for Stirling (by this writer’s then boss, no less).

The witness reviewed his list of responsibilities, particularly within the Scottish Office, which only had five Ministers to cover all the areas of Government. He compared that to the current Scottish Government after Devolution having over 20 Ministers. He said he “never worked harder” than as a Scottish Minister. He reflected on being accused of never having been an opposition spokesperson, but sometimes being a Scottish Minister felt like he was in opposition. He felt the weight of the responsibility for so many peoples’ lives, such as having briefs that included Health and Safety, prisons, and with him not being a lawyer, it involved him in the need to read a lot. It was hard work to keep up with the detail. For the second time already, the witness spoke up in support of the civil service. In his opinion, programmes like “Yes Minister” did a great disservice to their support to Ministers. He thought he was probably “a bit of a nightmare” to work for, due to his very demanding expectations on himself, and by association, his officials.

Lord Forsyth gave the example of him being the Chair of a board, and how he expected papers to come to the board members which only included what they had to be aware of and deal with. As a Minister, he spoke about “the tyranny of the red boxes” because of the incessant flow of excessive paperwork to be managed. Without the modern tech of video conferencing, he nonetheless still had the “flying saucers” which sat on tables so people could speak to each other over telephone lines with speakers. This writer remembers these flying saucers which at the time seemed very advanced.

Counsel asked about the relative time the witness spent on Health matters compared to others’ areas of Ministerial focus. He listed various other time-consuming topics, including the need to respond to AIDS. That had been a challenge initially because his predecessors had negative views about needle exchanges, so he had a bit of catching up to do on that matter. It was noted how, even when being asked a question by Counsel on the screen in front of him, the witness appears to have selected a point to affix his gaze which is slightly off to his upper left when listening and speaking. If any witness needed a hidden video prompt screen to help him, it was not this witness. His attention to detail included distinguishing for himself the difference between AIDS and HIV.

The issue of stigma was raised because of the concepts in the public domain about what AIDS was associated with. There was also the compromising treatment by insurance companies of people who had had a test, even when that test was negative, plus the examples of people losing their jobs.

Returning to the structural situation, the witness praised the uniquely important and weighty role of being a Private Secretary. The pivotal relationship with his or her Minister included knowing what went into the red boxes and what was on top. In saying that, Mr Forsyth said he did not neglect those papers lower down the piles. Compared to being in the Scottish Office, the other departmental roles were “an easier gig”. It would have been possible for a Minister to be constantly occupied in reading papers, so neglecting the opportunities to get out and meet real people. The witness did not feel there was an under-resourcing of the Scottish Office, despite the need to cover so many topics. He was not so sure about the statement of Mr MacNiven that the reliance on paperwork made things more formal, but Counsel clarified that it related to the fact of people being in Edinburgh and London, and so not so readily available for a simple chat. Mr Forsyth mentioned the benefits of things being written down because it requires people to be more thoughtful about what they were saying, and it leaves a record for future reference in required.

Counsel moved on to surrogate testing, including the disagreement between the Scottish Home and Health Department (SHHD) and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS) on this matter. Since Health was within the remit of the witness, he would have been the one to be involved if that was required. The witness began to say about how the decision on such matters would have to rely heavily on the experts, but at this point a fire alarm went off at the location from where Counsel was asking his questions, so an unexpected and immediate break was required.

(Break, break, break, break, break)

Going with his eyes immediately to that favoured spot at the back of the room, the witness resumed. As a non-medical person, he thought it would not be wise for him to try to intervene between experts. His overall view was that if there was an effective test it ought to have been used across the UK. He thinks it was a reasonable decision for the officials to have dealt with that issue themselves rather than require the Minister to arbitrate.

In relation to funding, the witness was asked to briefly explain the Barnett Formula. Basically, any increase to the overall UK pot to a department as decided in Westminster would result in a proportionate uplift to go to the Scottish budget. Scottish Ministers were not bound to use it for the same purposes as the original allocation in Westminster were to be used. That was one reason why Health had a somewhat larger allocation in Scotland because resources accruing from other areas of Government action were diverted to Health as a greater priority in Scotland. Lord Forsyth mentioned how the discretion in spending caused problems because if he did something different in Scotland, his UK counterpart would feel pressure to follow suit. On diverting money to hospices, for example, that would not involve the Treasury, but to introduce a compensation scheme for infected blood victims would have required Treasury input.

When it came to relations with the Treasury, he said the first response to any request for money going to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was to say “No”. He cited an example of linking with William Hague as his Welsh equivalent, for them to collude on their approaches to the Treasury. On being the territorial Minister, the witness referred to the idea that he was “Scotland’s representative in the Cabinet and not the Cabinet’s representative in Scotland”.

Before becoming a Secretary of State, Mr Forsyth did not have many interactions with the Chief Medical Officer (CMO). When it came to e-coli and BSE, he recalled the criticisms on their handling on these issues by Prof Hugh Pennington in the media. That did require specific CMO discussions. The CMO made the decisions on when he should or should not intervene or give advice.

In relation to the Common Services Agency (CSA), that was primarily an arms-length body from the SHHD, but with a SHHD representative on its independent Board (… how is that “independent”?) It was mainly officials who engaged with the CSA. He did recall a letter from Prof Cash seeking money to develop the SNBTS facility coming to his attention. Prof Cash has operated in a more abrasive style unlike what would be accepted by a SHHD official. He got results, but sometimes his approach was “less than tactful”. The witness described Factor 8 as a “miracle” innovation and there was pride in Scotland when reaching self-sufficiency in blood resourcing, even though there was a subsequent period when that was lost.