27 July 2022: Hunt - C

Mr Hunt re-entered the Hearing Room looking business-like and thoughtful. There was no underlying sense of enmity towards him as there had been for so many other Government witnesses. Maybe his apparent application of his own candour campaign to himself could be a lesson for others.

In July 2016 it was announced that an extra £125million would go to improve the financial support scheme payments. Number 10 officials had recommended sticking with the £25million option. David Cameron appeared to be taking the credit for the more generous new arrangements. Mr Hunt dutifully accepted his former bosses’ apparent grandstanding, given that the PM had been willing to go against his advisers. (How can that be such a big deal in a supposed democracy?)

A process including consultations was initiated. Diana Johnson wrote in about the proposed scheme. Mr Hunt agreed with her that there was not enough money in the system. She had also expressed concerns about widows/the bereaved, and he again agreed, calling it, “unfinished business”. Counsel asked about the parity issue given that the result was to create four schemes instead of a single UK programme of support payments. Since the harms were caused pre-Devolution, there were questions about the fairness of the resulting disparities. He acknowledged this but it was inevitable due to the arrangement for devolved administrations.

Internal exchanges demonstrated a continuing refusal by the Treasury to put any money in, even though it had been a Number 10 commitment. There was no point in making frequent written cases for support because the understanding was, “Don’t even go there”. Mr Hunt left office in 2018 by which time the new scheme was up and running. Counsel referred to the John Major analogy of Government being a slow tanker to turn around. “Yes, it took too long”, said the witness about the time it took to move forward on this issue. “It was painfully, painfully slow”, he said. He recognised that the resulting new payments were still not enough.

He was told when taking office that the Treasury would not support the cost of a Public Inquiry. Initially, he went along with that. He said he and his colleagues knew an Inquiry – due to its power and independence – would likely result in recommendations towards a much greater financial payment scheme with impacts that would have to be funded by the Treasury. This was a very useful admission. They knew then, so they know now, that the Inquiry is very likely to recommend a much, much more generous package of compensation, or redress, or reparation, or whatever it ends up being called to satisfy their requirements. Just so long as the amounts are full, fair, and commensurate to losses, they can call it what they want. Surely, they are already putting away the money in preparation for the end of this Inquiry. Would it be permissible for this to be disclosed through a Freedom of Information Request?

Mr Hunt re-stated how there had been a great injustice, but because of how hard it was to increase the schemes, he did not push for an Inquiry, knowing it would be a non-starter. The usual “lines” were still being used that had produced the view of the matter of compensation being closed. The witness felt that whether or not people had been deliberately infected, they still should be better supported. This was another very interesting qualification. He is recognising the real possibility of the Inquiry concluding that people were deliberately infected. That’s massive.

Despite his personal views, the convention of “collective responsibility” meant he had to defend Government lines in public, despite maybe having argued against them in Cabinet. The breaking of that convention would require the Minister to resign. He said, “It might sound wrong, but Government has to operate that way”.

A document was displayed showing the witness recommending no Public Inquiry. His explanation was his knowledge that the time was not right politically, so he delayed until Theresa May was the Prime Minister. He saw this as, “Unfinished business”, and that the Treasury were continually blocking any Inquiry, so when it looked like the Government might lose a debate vote, he moved to suggest it was a good time to change the position. He also knew Theresa May was minded to be supportive to cases of injustice. He was very happy to get a reply saying there would be an Inquiry. He did not know if she spoke with the Treasury before saying it, but in any event, once the PM decides, that is the Government position.

There were excuses and reasons for not holding an Inquiry still being put by officials. These included some nonsense about it not being in the best interests of infected people, then talking about the time and cost. (Some people need to get a life.) Mr Hunt did recognise how sometimes Governments might use Inquiries to delay looking into an issue by kicking it down the road through the Inquiry process. More candour from this witness.

At the same time as all these comings and goings, there was increasing media pressure, and Andy Burnham’s suggestion of criminal acts to be revealed, but from Mr Hunt’s perspective it was the debate secured by Diana Johnson which the Government would likely lose that clinched the deal for him. He saw that as the moment to, “Seize the opportunity”; and the rest is history (or so they say). Counsel displayed an internal response seeking to not release certain documents into the public domain related to the topics to be covered by the Inquiry. The witness said it was wrong and totally against the intent of the Freedom of Information Act. He wondered if it was an attempt to protect the reputations of people (… yes maybe, or maybe there was a more sister reason). Counsel quoted from the Theresa May announcement of the Inquiry giving reasons for setting it up, and the witness agreed with everything. He said, “It is undeniable”, that an Inquiry should have happened sooner. There should have been more openness much earlier on. Recognising that it might not be his place, he hoped the Inquiry will include some consideration of how to avoid something like the Contaminated Blood Scandal ever happening again through better processes in Government. He recognised the role of the Treasury of always, by default, saying “no” to any request for additional funding.

He was asked if anyone had carried out a study to assess how much public money could have been saved if a proper scheme of compensation had been set up back when the problems happened, as opposed to all the efforts to justify not paying people, to justify not having an Inquiry, to set up schemes and then set up an Inquiry. He did not know of such a study. The witness recalled all the Inquiries he did set up which was often not welcomed. The comments in his book were quoted. He expressed his thoughts that there had to be an energy to sort out problems, beyond just by having transparency. He said it is more difficult to have an open system in an adversarial political system. He agreed there should be an application of his thinking across Government. He mentioned the natural tendency to cover up mistakes in case it causes a detriment to people. He also mentioned the specific case of civil servants who want to support and protect their Ministers. He wonders if it would be better to have civil servants be more willing to take more difficult options to Ministers. But that might be hampered by the hierarchy within the Civil Service itself.

Again, from his book came the witnesses’ considerations on consensus views taking hold, especially within large organisations. He used healthcare as an example of the justifications which come from “group-think” in making or justifying hard decisions, or when people are harmed or die. He saw these as important matters to work through. It was noted that in his book he cited ongoing Inquiries when he left office but didn’t mention the Infected Blood Inquiry. That was current too so he recognised how he should have mentioned it.

Counsel then went on to ask about the witnesses’ establishment of the charity “Patient Safety Watch”. It is a research group looking at preventable harms in healthcare systems. Much of the thinking from his time as Health Minister informed this initiative.

The recent report from the Health and Social Care Committee (of which Mr Hunt is currently the Chair) “NHS litigation reform” covered matters for patients who may be forced to accuse doctors of negligence to get the support they need which results in very long legal battles, and when the money eventually comes, if it does, far too late beyond when it is needed. Studies from other countries such as New Zealand showed a no-fault compensation saved money.

He agreed with Matt Hancock that there was a moral responsibility on the Government to act to support infected and affected people better.

Finally, the death of Mike Dorricott had left it on the conscience of the witness that he did not come close to delivering justice to Mike and his family whilst he was alive. “Mike made a huge contribution to justice being done,” said the witness. There was spontaneous applause.