21 July 2022: Reid - B

The witness stated that PM Blair tended to let him get on with things unless there was a problem. He dealt with the Treasury himself and was ok with that, even though other might have gone up the chain of command to get what they wanted. Of course, that chain involved the Cabinet, which was full of people who had their own fights with the Treasury for money, so would hardly be minded to support a budgetary competitor. He did not recall discussing this matter with either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. He speculated that Paul Boateng had maybe discussed the matter with them but could not say more than that. These things were happening very rapidly. The Treasury dropped their bombshell of not paying for anything the day before the announcement was to be made. Even on the day itself there was not yet a fixed arrangement in place on a number of relevant issues. This writer understands the overarching rule of the Civil Service that there be “No Surprises”, thus this whole situation must have been so far from the established comfort zone that people may have been wondering if they had woken up in a dystopian parallel universe. Maybe the shake-up of Whitehall as posited by Dominic Cummings and Andy Burnham, among others, might be a worthwhile idea.

The witness statement of Mr Reid made it clear he did not decide to make payments because he was forced to by Scotland, but he was happy to acknowledge the innovation coming from Scotland. It was not a case of “the Scottish tail wagging the English dog”, but neither was it a case of England seizing control of someone else’s’ work. It appears the witness believes he is due credit for independently coming to the conclusion to make payments and is due to get credit for generously giving credit to Scotland for kicking it all off. Seems like a “win-win” for him. If you think he is wrong, you can meet the witness in the alley behind the building to discuss the matter. Bring your own bottle.

When the topic moved to links with representative groups, he listed the number of “split-off” groups from the Haemophilia Society and he did not want to get involved in the arguments between the campaign groups. To cut through that, he was happy to meet with the Haemophilia Society only. He was not involved in the detail of who was to be included in the scheme and who was not but left that to Melanie Johnston. Michael Connarty MP was the APPG Chair (All-Party Parliamentary Group … on Haemophilia?) and the go-to person in the Commons, while Lord Morris was the witnesses’ link in the Lords. The decision not to include “dependents” was a “matter of regret” for the witness, but while he accepted the moral case for them to be involved too, it was already a fight to get the money for the infected, let alone anyone else. He thought it would be easier to extend it to more people once something was in place. On the question of extending that strategy to mean the new scheme would be kept under review for purposes including extending those who could benefit, he did not want to appear critical of those who followed for not doing that. He said it was not possible at the time on grounds of affordability, and such a circumstance was not uncommon in Government.

On the setting of criteria for levels of payment, he left that to the experts since it was way beyond his knowledge as a non-medic; for example, on matters of cirrhosis. He didn’t expect Melanie Johnston to input to the clinical decisions either, but to ensure the meetings were happening. The witness sought to explain (with a hint of exasperation at the detailed pursuit on decision-making related to the setting up of the Skipton Fund), that basically he wanted a scheme as close to Macfarlane as possible, with the recognised issue of dependents not being included for the reasons he had already explained. After that, he had minimal involvement. Skipton was eventually announced almost a year later. The witness saw the time involved as relatively fast in Government terms, especially given all the unusual circumstances about how it came about.

Counsel then moved to the levels of payment and referenced the work of the group led by Lord Ross in Scotland. The amounts eventually announced by Ministers were considerably less than the Ross recommendations. The witness mentioned the difference in the consequences arising from an independent report because those involved did not have to worry about budget constraints. Whereas a Minister would have to decide that to agree to make a payment to one group, he had to then choose who to take the money from. (… But wait a cotton-picking minute there Lord R. You previously said you expected the money to come from the Reserves. That would not have involved a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” scenario. You are doing the old, they would be taking money away from patient care. You are running the risk of sweeping away any sense people may have developed that you were one of the “good guys”, and not one of the Onanists. You said you did not read the Ross Reports of the Haemophilia Society one either, yet you were happy then to describe how better parliamentarians were at knowing the needs of real people through their constituency work than any expert group might have, but you do not consider the involvement of patient experts who were part of the Ross Expert Group. So, a guy coming to your surgery on a wet Wednesday would be better placed to tell you about living with viral Hepatitis more than his next-door neighbour who was too sick to make it to the community centre you were talking in. I don’t believe it. Do you?)

On the matter of one considered option being to embarrass the Scottish Government to get them into line, the witness had not seen the document but questioned the wording. He did not have any sense of using that approach in this matter. (Whether he did in other fixer jobs, that is not a matter for this Inquiry.)

When it came to the possibility of the whole situation needing to be investigated by a Public Inquiry, he had stated that the need for such was never brought to him. (Cue justified incredulity.) Counsel put it to the witness that officials advising a Minister might not be best placed to advise on holding a Public Inquiry if it would result in them being held to account. He said he stands to be corrected that nobody brought it up to him to hold an Inquiry, not Alf Morris, not the Haemophilia Society, not other politicians including Andy Kerr. (Sir, we don’t believe you.) This writer sat next to Andy Kerr who was Scottish Health Minister at the time, in a meeting and personally asked him why he was so resistant to a Public Inquiry, speculating that people in his position maybe got bonus points for resisting Inquiries. Andy Kerr was so annoyed at this suggestion that he threatened to leave the room. Reid was having a laugh, but the joke was not a funny one. He mentioned how he set up five Inquiries when in Northern Ireland but could not see a justification in the case of contaminated blood.

Counsel said the witnesses’ threshold of there needing to be “prima facia” evidence before initiating an Inquiry, was above that of the soon to be enacted Inquiries Act. During the discussion about what would have been the tipping point for Lord Reid, the Chair felt the need to intervene with a direct question about what he had been thinking at the time. The witness went on a bit of a meander with some apparent sense of overall direction, then he asked the Chair, “Does that answer your question?” Sir Brian answered without batting an eyelid, “Well, it’s your answer.” (Kaboom!)

Further pressing from the Chair about an Inquiry being sought “on this issue” included naming Andy Kerr as someone the witness had discussions and correspondence with. The witness resorted to a comment about semantics (an established safety valve for the exposed), while eventually conceding how references to an Inquiry were not just about investigating the scheme, but in reality it was the general issue of how people were infected. In other words, this Inquiry 16 years ago (… and that was by far not the first call).

Sir Brian ended his intervention by handing back to Counsel with the words, “I don’t think anything else arises out of that.” (Turbo-kaboom.) To which the witness said to whoever was listening in suitably cowed terms, “Thank you for that, that’s very helpful … I had forgotten about that.”

Finally, the idea of a “mind-set”, or “group-think” in Government departments, and of resistance to changing long-established lines to take, was raised by Counsel. The witness used the concept of “constant renewal” as being basically a good thing to be applied in that setting. He said officials dislike two types of Ministers; those who don’t want to know, and those who do know but who don’t want to listen. Civil servants have to defend the agreed position until it changes or might be moving towards change. Then their role is to highlight the consequences of change as part of the consideration, especially if it might be illegal. Once the change is settled, the civil servants then get on with taking forward the new line and the new courses of actions that followed. The suggestion was agreed with that Ministers had the responsibility to probe, to question, to listen, but the witness added that their time is limited (yes, that excuse popped up again).

Maybe a new distracting strategy is being recommended by the Government lawyers because this witness, like a recent other, thought the person putting documents on the screen was worthy of his attention before going back to his safe house over lunch. Lord Reid stood far enough away so everyone could hear him apologise for not hearing everything first time, but he was “too vain” to get a hearing aid. This writer is only stopped from milking the life out of this comment by the need to stop for lunch, like everyone else was already well into enjoying.