28 July 2022: Chisholm - D

The final session of the day meant it was time for core participant questions:

On the Terms of Reference for the Ross Expert Group and the hope that a system could be found to rule out no-fault compensation; he said it was included in quite an open-ended way, but there were some who were concerned about that.

On the time period around 2002 and the option of regular payments; he said the lump sum was thought of as a way to get round the benefits/devolution matter, but before that they had been talking about regular payments.

On a letter written by the witness, where did the figure of regular payments of £500 per month come from or how was it worked out; he said he did not know, but they were always notional figures. He acknowledged it was a limited amount in relation to what people might have lost in benefits if that had occurred.

On whom would be included to receive payments; he said it was a limited number of people but he could not give an actual figure or say that it was known.

On the shift to lump sum payments; he said there were worries that a lump sum would look like compensation. This shift was really a turning point, even though it subsequently became understood that a regular payments system would not have been a problem. It also got closer to the Ross recommendation.

On another Health Committee appearance; he said there had needed to be legislation to exclude the ongoing Macfarlane payments from social security benefit reckoning, and there was no guarantee that what was then just a Scottish Scheme would get a UK legislation change.

On the reasoning for not going down the route of all the Ross recommendations; he said he recalled a very long meeting involving Philip Dolan when these matters were discussed at length, but maybe there could have been more explanation in other settings.

On the fact that it became a UK scheme, doing away with the social security issue; he said it was no doubt easier to do it on a UK level. A different arrangement could have applied in different parts of the country but there were other advantages of staying as a UK scheme.

On the 9 September meeting and what was agreed by then; he said by and large the rough amounts and the eligible people were understood generally.

On any new mortgage or insurance arrangement; he said he did not know of any and there was some frustration about that, which was not helped by the person they were linking to moving on to a new job. This also covered a reserved matter.

On non-financial support aspects of the Ross Recommendations; he said he had always been interested in Hep C, but (… then he went on to not answer the question but fill the gap with more droning on).

The Chair had no questions.

The witness apologised for speaking to quickly at the start. He was also glad to speak about these matters on World Hepatitis Day. He was also also glad to have set the ball rolling on payments for HCV patients, but he was sad that the levels of payments were not higher. He looked forward to reading the outcome of the Inquiry. He took full responsibility for not understanding and so not doing enough, and hoped thoszzzzzzzzzzzz……… 

The Chair thanked him for his time and the speed with which he felt the need to get out what he had to say.

Prior to his appearance at the Inquiry there was a degree of hope, even an expectation, that Mr Chisholm’s apparent earnestness and his distance from political life might have allowed him to say some useful things to help the cause of the infected and affected. Oh well, so much for that.

On refection, this writer had a couple of thoughts. One related to the composition of the Health Committee, which was so influential, or could have been. It was well known that one key member, Dr Richard Simpson, was a staunch medic first and a politician second. He was a strident defender of his profession; which in itself is not a crime. But as one of two fully trained and signed up members of the medical world, was there perhaps too great a temptation to push back against anything which might call into question the squeaky-clean impression that the good doctors always knew best, always were right, and always acted in the best interests of their patients regardless of any personal gains. The calls for a Public Inquiry and financial support to a group of patients who had been harmed by their precious NHS might just have rubbed up against the already well established default of the medical profession of circling the wagons to protect them and theirs. On a related vein, it might be recalled that the Scottish Inquiry was originally supposed to be Chaired by Lady Cosgrove, but she withdrew before even getting started, apparently due to her close family links to medical practitioners. It was seen as too close for comfort and a risk of a conflict of interest; or at least an accusation of such. Yet the Health Committee members with direct and personal medical interests did not withdraw, and that was not questioned. Maybe it should have been. The result of the former potential conflict was Lord Penrose (enough said). We can only speculate as to what might have happened differently if the vested interests on the Health Committee had similarly been discretely withdrawn.

Finally, this writer has a personal connection to the events surrounding this witness. Mr Chisholm had made one of his verbiaged responses to some aspect of the campaign or other. We were soon thereafter meeting together to decide what to do next. Noting the sickly non-response of Mr Chisholm, (still commonly referred to in political parlance as a “fudge”), and noting the separate and incidental fact that one of our number was a baker by vocation, it was suggested by this writer that it might get the message across by actually presenting the Health Minister with an actual fudge cake. At least it might become a reasonable photo opportunity. In short order a very lovely fudge cake was produced, and soon thereafter presented to the said Mr Chisholm. He appeared to take it in good spirit – or rather he took the gesture reasonably well – but he would not take the cake. Maybe he was worried that to teach him a lesson we had deliberately infected the thing with some noxious pathogen like a laxative (sadly, not) which, while being quite benign in the way he and his bods wanted to say Hep C was benign, it was nevertheless not wanted. If only the NHS patients who did not have such as choice had been allowed the chance not to entertain the prospect of a viral stowaway being on board the new best treatment available.