29 July 2022: Deacon - C

The evidence picked up at the point just before Ms Deacon left office. She was asked why she rejected the recommendations of the Health Committee when they had proposed to initiate financial support for people infected with HCV from their NHS treatments, and why instead she decided to set up the (Lord Ross) Expert Group. She thought the “absolute sensible next step” was to do the Expert Group thing. Presumably that means she was opposed to the Health Committee because they were not being absolutely sensible like what she was. But then she spoiled the decisive moment by saying it just “felt like the right thing to do”. How typical of her style of being an academic; definitive nebulosity.

Rather than simply answer the question, the witness continued with her ever so helpful self-appointed role of Chief Contextualiser to the Infected Blood Inquiry. The second First Minister had resigned unexpectedly so they were in a hiatus, then she added a reference to vCJD, then she added some unnecessary twaddle about people collaborated their thinking (which sounded like the dreaded group-think in action). A draft response to the Health Committee report with its call for financial support was prepared under the name of the witness, but she did not think she read it. There is a pattern emerging.

The witness talked about the “mental summersaults” they went through to get to a final position. Speaking of mental summersaults, the answering style of the witness is becoming clearer. The first response was to note how the question was open to interpretation. Then she’d says there are two (or three, or four) aspects to the answer. Then she’d go off at a tangent. Then give an illustrative example or three. The insert a qualifying clause or ten. The she’d sit back satisfied, basking in the enormity of her own intellectual reasoning capacity. A reaction she was uniquely able to enjoy.

At one point the witness spoke about there being all kinds of sources of advice, forming a “Hierarchy of Advice” (© Deacon’s Delineation). Bottom of the pile is policy advice which can be robustly discussed. Then it is specialist advice such as medical advice, which you really have to take seriously. Then equal to or above that is legal advice, which of course you don’t mess about with. (And there endeth the lesson.)

Counsel tried to sneak back in with another easy question, “Why would making payments to people who had received a defective product have opened up a precedent?” Unfortunately, the response started, “There are two aspects to this, …blah, blah, blah, … you need to stick to a general principle of not paying compensation for non-negligent harm, …blah, blah, blah, … but then how do you support people who have been put in need by the State? …blah, blah, blah, … there are so many technical and legal processes involved, …blah, blah, blah, … hopefully the Inquiry can achieve better definition on these complex and challenging types of situations, …blah, blah, blah, …” This writer has included this as an illustration of what the audience had to endure for a whole day. Meanwhile it is suggested the answer should have been, “I don’t know”.

The witness was gently opened up to the hope of a straight answer by Counsel, one final time, “I have a simple final question, why did you decide not to hold a Public Inquiry?” Good try, Counsel, but the witness does not know how to do simple answers. She felt it was necessary to give another lecture, this time on Inquiries, their types, their purposes, examples, etc. (see above). Does she not realise she is assuming it is ok to take coal to Newcastle? None of what she said was necessary. (Hey Granny, come over here. There is a woman up front who wants to teach you how to suck eggs.) It is noteworthy the number of times the stenographer had to insert the place-holder “(inaudible)” during this witnesses’ evidence.

Counsel soldiered on, “Just so I can be clear about the answer, which you have been asked several times during the day, … are you saying, ‘there was a next stage, but you didn’t know what that next stage should be’?” And the witness answered, “Yes” (Hooray!) But then added (boo), “I’m normally good at working out what the next stage should be in things, but …” The comment was made that this witness is too much like a second hand car salesperson – saying anything to get you to buy the jalopy – but then you realise you are being unfair to car salespersons.