21 July 2022: Reid - C

Time for questions from core participants ... the sense of anticipation was palpable, not:

On becoming Secretary of State for Health and having pre-existing knowledge; he said he was generally aware of the HIV/AIDS situation, but not of “Hepatitis C sufferers”.

On saying that what was happening in Scotland was a “catalyst”, and if it had not happened there would it have come to him any other way; he said he normally dislikes hypothetical questions, but he said that it was a good question. The basic answer was that he did not know, but there were possibly chances when things could have come to his attention though other means.

On the low levels of scheme payments as mentioned in a letter from Colette Wintle which also spoke of documents which she said would justify a Public Inquiry, and probably went through the “treat official” (TO) route; he said it was correct he did not see it, and agreed that it meant an official was responding to a request for an Inquiry, and had rejected it, (and so this would not therefore have come through to him, which in turn meant he could say he knew of no calls for a Public Inquiry. How could he sit there and justify a system designed to justify his justification, … QED?

On there being Scottish Executive efforts to review what had happened at a time which included a period when he was head of the Scotland Office; he said it might have been something to refer back to, but then it would have probably been for the Scottish Department of Health to refer back their records covering the SHHD period.

On why Jack McConnell got involved with Malcolm Chisholm’s meeting in London; he said it might have been seen as significant enough, but he thought it was more a question for Mr Chisholm.

On the logical similarity between Macfarlane and Skipton cohorts and the desire to match the schemes, yet there was not a discretionary grants element; he said the original aim was to match them, but they were different, plus there were the financial constraints issues.

On the rationale for the Scottish motivation to make payments and if the witness was aware of this rationale; he said the answer should better come from the Scottish Executive (ie. he didn’t answer the question of whether he knew or not). Basically, it went back to money, money, money.

On a petition before the Scottish Parliament asking for a Public Inquiry and if he knew about it; he said he does not remember hearing about it.

The Chair had one question about how the witness was new in post, seemed to be rattling cages, was advised of the Scottish plans to “unilaterally” act, and what he meant by saying it made people “uncomfortable”. The witness said it made sense to seek to maximise available resources, including those in the private sector such as scanners, when there were so many people waiting for a scan. People though he could not get away with that approach, especially as a Labour Minister. His response to that comment was, “Just you wait and see.” The witness then went on a philosophical journey about how institutional change and collective resistance happen. There was even a reference to Galileo being locked up for his views which went against the paradigm. Before things got too space-bound, he brought it back to the Health Service. He told the story of Nye Bevan being given four good reasons why the NHS could not be set up, but once there was a change of aim, there would be five good reasons for doing so. The Chair stroked the witnesses ego as a historian, so despite having said this was not the forum, he used the forum to wax lyrical about his role in making things better for people by his philosophical approach. The Chair asked what argument made the difference with civil servants and the Treasury and the witness came up with a few which he then used. He admitted how he came up with an imperfect scheme, and unsatisfactory one, but it was something which could be built upon, despite the gaps, to be targeted at “the living suffering” (which was an interesting phrase to use).

The witness thanked Counsel and the Chair for their courtesy. He said it was the nature of Inquiries to refer to documents and talk about facts and figures, but it is really about people. He expressed his sympathy … blah, blah, blah.

The Chair thanked the witness.

Back to the Buckfast, quick. (That’s a regional cultural reference).