20 July 2022: Forsyth - D

Finally, to core participant questions:

On the stigma of HIV related to people infected who were also from black or other ethnic minorities; he said it was not his experience of Scotland, but obviously there were unacceptable racial prejudice occurring in the population at the time that would not happen now.

On the possibility of opening up floodgates; he said he thought the view taken was correct, including the concerns over having a “no-fault” arrangement, even though some saw that as a way to overcome aspects of the problem of supporting people who had been harmed.

On the moral aspects of the case for supporting people; he said it was a matter of emphasising the principle over the cost. He was not so sure about describing it as “moral”.

On the possible reliance of Scottish officials on the UK DH; he said of course the larger numbers of staff and greater degree of specialism resulted in adopting DH leads, but the collaboration elements were important.

On there having only been six-weeks to turn around the response to the announcements on HCV support; he said it was not helpful and there should have been greater collaboration or at least information-sharing.

On the role of public inquiries to help resolve certain issues; he said that in the right circumstances, such as the Dunblane massacre, public inquiries are necessary, but they can take a long time and cost a lot of money. He acknowledged that since this Inquiry was happening after all this time, then the actions of people in the past to resolved matters had not been effective.

On him saying earlier in the day Factor 8 was a miracle intervention treatment; he said it had been a wording which happened to come to mind and was not significant. He recalled some elements of what people had said at the time which some might consider to be what made Factor 8 be seen in such a positive way. Counsel did refer to a part of the witnesses’ statement when he did mention an awareness of negative issues with Factor 8, beyond the positivity.

On alternatives to factor concentrates; he said he could not name other products but did think the aim for self-sufficiency were worth pursuing.

On the emergence of new treatments from England; he said he did not really know much about that topic.

On the views of Prof Cash being considered or available to ACVSB; he said he thought that was a matter for them.

On a reliable testing kit being available after the officials seemed to be wanting that, and when he was told it was available; he expressed concerns about the question’s underlying meaning but would have expected that once a test was available they would go ahead and start using it.

On the issue of “look-back”, the availability of testing, and the decision to move forward; he said it was for the experts to set out the rationale and the costs, then for Ministers to act.

On being in the Commons with the accountability which that place brings related to the role of officials; he said there is a trend to blame civil servants, but they were highly able people and it was not a trend he thought was justified or helpful.

On the retention of papers and any system for ensuring that it happens; he said it was probably for the Cabinet Secretary to answer. He was shocked at the non-availability of his own papers. This had not been the case at a previous Inquiry he gave evidence to.

The Chair had three questions. Firstly, on the value the witness put on retained papers. The witness acknowledged the great deal of help from Government lawyers on trying to find his Ministerial papers in preparation for this Inquiry, but these could not be located, so he had to assume they had been destroyed. This writer cannot help but wonder if their non-availability of versions of the papers where his contemporaneous notes related to the witnesses’ differences of opinion with his colleagues and the arguments he might have made, might be more than a coincidence.

Secondly, on the view in a note that an infected person in Scotland might pursue court action independently, even without Legal Aid. The witness was not satisfied with the way the Government chose to proceed at the time, but while he might not have liked the way things were done, he congratulated William Waldegrave on what he achieved.

Thirdly, it was clear Mr Forsyth had been supportive of infected people, including on the issue on stigma, but the Chair wondered if the witness had a view on the effectiveness of what was done and what, on reflection, could yet be done to combat stigma. The witness noted the social changes in attitudes, but there remained a need not to instil a sense of fear which causes people to react in negative ways. He thinks there is a leadership role, and suggested some of those including politicians, religious leaders, etc. The Chair extended his question into the issue of candour. The witness spoke of the need to respect the Ministerial Code, Parliament, the Select Committees, and to give proper responses to questions, among others he listed. He also said responsible journalism was important. He counts his blessings that social media was not around when he was a Minister. He tried Twitter for three months but left due to the nature of the discourse, including the dismissing of scientific evidence.

Additionally, on how expert advisory groups are responded to by Ministers, particularly if they are moved to reject the advice. He sees the value of closed-door candid discussions, but also if minded not to agree, then the Minister must give clear reasons for their different decision.

The witness said he did not have much to add but to apologise for him getting emotional, which was not expected on his part. His thought was that people were acting on the best information available to them.

The Chair thanks the witness for his help in the difficult questions at the end to overcome the issues of changing how big institutions and society think and act.. He said it was nothing to apologise for that he got emotional. Indeed, he would be concerned for anyone hearing some of the evidence and not being moved in some way. The writer believes there is great significance to that comment by the Chair, beyond any direct reference to Mr Forsyth. There certainly have been many witnesses who have been aware of the consequences of infected blood, but their lack of being moved ought to be a concern for themselves and to us due to what it suggests about them as human beings.