21 July 2022: Blears - B

The speaking started back sounding a bit less sharp. It didn’t take long for the blush to raise its awareness levels, and for the inflection in the voice to return.

A question about holding a Public Inquiry opened up a bit of a verbal essay on the ramifications of these processes. The witness had had no experience of actually being involved in an Inquiry (but that did not stop her talking about the subject). She did not know the criteria for initiating an Inquiry. Ms Blears did acknowledge the large number of questions that had been raised in both Houses which highlighted how there were so many questions still unanswered.

The letter from Carol Grayson citing a number of the key issues justifying a Public Inquiry had not been seen by the witness. Counsel asked hypothetically, if she had seen the letter would it have moved her to hold an Inquiry. She said “No” not on it’s own. She had obviously followed the evidence of her former boss, Alan Milburn, who said there might be a case for a body to be set up with criteria to guide decisions about holding Inquiries. When asked if simply by virtue of the numbers of people involved and if that should be a factor, she said it should be more than just that, but also other matters such as the “depth” (whatever that means), and the level of harm caused (What?), but then realised how stupid it was to say such a thing in the present setting in from of the present audience, so she quickly added that the infected had been so badly affected. (Too late, Ms Blears, too late.)

The loss of documents was mentioned as it related to the Burgen Report into the missing Lord Owen Ministerial papers. The witness thought this was a useful piece of work, but it was published just a few days before Ms Blears was moved to the Home Office. (Why do so many people get moved just before a key development related to these matters? Is there a timing connection, or is paranoia simply another chronic consequence of viral infection?)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

26 July 2023: Sunak - A

And in walked the Prime Minister (PM), at exactly 2pm. One minute later the Chair enters. Sir Brian said a few words of thanks for the special circumstances related to access people had to endure due to the additional security arrangements. The PM gave the oath following his own religious affiliation. Counsel contextually reviewed how the witness had stated that his knowledge and involvement relied on other Ministers, however he had received more recent briefings in preparation for the appearance today. The first questions went straight to the communications from Penny Mordaunt when she was Paymaster General (PG). These highlighted in strong terms the need for action at the time and not to delay. Before answering, the witness wanted to say how he recognised this was, “An appalling scandal … people have suffered for decades” (and other fine words not backed up with action). In relation to the letters from the PG, he did not see them under the normal situation of a triage to filter the c...
Read more

25 July 2023: Dunn - B

Questions from core participants: Was there an investigation into the newspaper leaks? She was not aware of one, but that would have been taken forward by the Cabinet Office. (Fox and chicken coop comes to mind.) What are the main elements being used to come up with the leaked figures? She was not able to say but would get back to the Inquiry with that information. On psychological support, will the research be made publicly available, and when? She expected it would be and was expected in August. The research was understood to have been commissioned in 2022, but the need was highlighted in 2020. Why did it take so long to get to the point of commissioning the work? She said there was a process of “ongoing dialogue” after which it was decided that what was required was more ongoing dialogue. (That’s not exactly how it was phrased.) The Chair referenced himself as having, on several occasions, expressed the hope that he can recognise how everyone in the UK, including England, was benefi...
Read more

17 November 2022: Panel on finding the undiagnosed - A

Another panel of leading medics were assembled to address the issue of how to find people who are still undiagnosed. There was one from each of the four nations: Professor Graham Foster (England); Professor John Dillon (Scotland); Doctor Brendan Healey (Wales); and Dr Joanne McLean (Northern Ireland). As usual, for each witness there was a brief review of their respective roles and responsibilities. The situation in England started with a description of the HCV elimination initiative and its arrangement involving the pharmaceutical companies which was lauded by the English witness but seemed curious. For their cooperation, the pharma companies get anonymous, headline data on patients. There is a three phase elimination programme in England. Phase 1 is about oral therapies. Phase 2 is about risk groups. It involves an incentivised process to encourage the identification by re-engagement with patients who had had a positive test but had not been treated. It involved about 50,000 people. ...
Read more