20 July 2022: Forsyth - C
Recognising the limited options for consultation, the consensus was that the emotionality of Mr Forsyth during the previous session was genuine.
A letter from Roger Freeman was about the proposal for establishing an Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood (ACVSB). One of the reasons was to advise on blood screening issues. The witness agreed to the proposals and sought for a unified way forward between the various blood services. He did wonder why it had not been set up previously but did not know himself the reason for the delay in recognising the need for such a group. Since it was a UK body, it was nevertheless not inevitable to see the UK Department of Health (DH) as the lead agency involved, despite the scalar differences. The Territorial Departments did not see themselves as “junior partners”.
Another document referred to a Guardian article on the Ortho screening test which might have caused alarm among the public. The document included a listing of the reasons for and against screening based on an assessment of the capacity and limitation of the tests. It included the recommended of a UK-wide date of 1 September 1991 to initiate tests. The document highlighted the potential for difficulties if Scotland was not on board. It also mentioned preparatory developments and dates showing the sometimes extended timescales involved to build up to the decision. My Forsyth thought the Scottish Ministers should have been involved before it had become a decision. “It is presented as a fait accompli by the DH”, he agreed.
Counsel noted how, despite the long gaps between the steps leading to initiating testing in the UK, the witness had replied within two days. While the aim was not to have a public announcement of the new screening tests starting, the witness recommended an alternative view that there should be a press announcement. He felt there was a strong enough case to justify any concerns about delaying the introduction of tests by the strength of the evidence for the decisions along the way. His general rule was to disclose information and explain the rationale for decisions, unless there was an unusual and compelling case not for doing so. From what the witness had said, the Chair suggested how not disclosing something – good or bad – and then that being discovered (leaked), could lead to accusations of a “cover-up”.
With reference to what was said in a press release document, he said, “I wouldn’t have been happy to rely on the United States to say a test was reliable”, rather he wanted to know that local experts had carried out their own assessments. He cited a trip to San Francisco which he had assumed would be a place ahead of the pack since they had been an early centre for the AIDS outbreak. However, he was surprised to see how poorly resourced some services were, and the City not being as advanced as he expected, for example, with respect to needle exchange systems.
Counsel asked about the witnesses’ possible recollection of there being calls for a public inquiry, but he could not recall any. He thought it was too soon for that during his time since so much of the response to infected blood was still playing out. On a general note, the witness observed, “I don’t think here would be a suitable place for me to express my views on the efficacy of public inquiries.” This was said with a wry smile and drew an obvious silent laugh from Sir Brian, despite the mask.
The witness ended with some thoughts on the relative merits of being in the Commons and the House of Lords. Basically, the Commons had the advantage of contact with real people as constituents they were accountable to, whereas the Lords included more people who were expert in their fields and matters could be more independently considered by the way they did their business.
Comments
Post a Comment