25 July 2022: Keel - C

If Scotland were to go ahead with a Look-back Exercise before the rest of the UK, it would stop the UK from sticking to the line that they had been acted as soon as they could on these issues. The Chair insightfully intervened to comment that the writer from the UK Government, in responding as they had to Lord Fraser’s letter, wanted to say it was acting as quickly as possible, but in order to maintain that position, it wanted Scotland to slow down. The room responded with a titter, but sadly, despite saying that the Chair’s description could indeed be one way of seeing it, she went on to keep answering questions as if she had not actually fully appreciated the logical reasoning involved. This writer does not think the witnesses’ lack of acuity is pretended.

It became impossible for a UK position not to collectively carry out a Look-back and so a u-turn was made, reluctantly. Counsel then moved to how that would be rolled out, including awareness-raising with the public. Basically, the whole communications strategy was to send a letter to GPs. Prof Ludlum wrote to the witness on a small addition for people who received D-Fix. Dr Keel wrote back to “Dear Christopher” to say they would not take his request on board since it would be a massive burden on the NHS (no mention of the public good). Nobody thought that there should be a paid-for public media campaign. A request came from the West of Scotland for support to do the Look-back. Although not remembering the actual request, Dr Keel said she would have referred the matter back to the local NHS Board. The burden to do even the non-Ludlum-extended exercise was still burdensome on clinicians, and there was a lack of engagement to follow through with the required work. An UK-wide interim update report highlighted two bottleneck problems, the difficulty in discovering the relevant patient records, and the lack of counsellors for people to have access to once identified. The witness thought this was probably applicable in Scotland.

Dr Franklin of SNBTS asked if a final push could go ahead, with funding support, or let the Look-back be effectively closed. No money was provided but it did undergo a final push which the witness assumes came from the SNBTS itself, especially after they were strongly encouraged to still carry out the Look-back final push. As an UK effort, it could not be “closed”. The data included patient identifiable information. The witness did not know much level of detail but thought it was included, and that any patient involved would have been advised of their personal information being retained, although there was probably no written consent taken. (To think this person had such a pivotal role in leading on health matters for the people of Scotland yet did not think it was important enough to keep abreast of key features of the roll-out, is scarily amazing.) Dr Keel did not know if there was any specific effort to raise awareness of HCV and its effects on people. She thought that possibly the Primary Care people in the SHHD might have done something. (Amazingly scary.)

The next topic was about support for people infected with Hepatitis C. The policy when she came into post was not to make support payments to HCV infected people. A 1995 letter recognised how maintaining the no payments position was becoming untenable. Of course, it included the usual lines to take and the concerns over opening up the possibility that other patient groups might seek a similar scheme. The success of the haemophilia campaigners had occasionally been mentioned, as it was again at this point, and the sense was that while it would not be acceptable to say anything negative about campaigners (in the style of Ken Clarke), there was clearly an underlying frustration at their apparent success.

The witness confirmed her agreement with the statements being made across the UK saying that the treatments were “the best available at the time”. They did contain viruses, she conceded, but they had revolutionised the lives of haemophiliacs. People had gone from an average life-expectancy of 35, to a near normal lifespan and much normalised lives. It again is becoming clear how much those advising the Government witnesses had impressed on their clients the need to stick with the position of saying that what they said was the right thing to say when they said it and if asked to reflect, to say their saying was the same saying they would say today. (You don’t say.)

For the purposes of avoiding bumping into a planned fire alarm test at wherever the witness was sitting giving her evidence, the session ended a little earlier than usual; lest those watching were treated to an ear-shattering siren (which might have awoken them from the sleep they had fallen into while waiting for the witness to say something other than the same old same old).