29 July 2022: Deacon - D

Core participant questions (note: the answers were heavily truncated where required to save the planet, and the reader’s mental health):

On why there was a Government lawyer involved in the consideration about an internal investigation from the start; she said it is often the case things happened that way, but really she didn’t notice.

On why there was a focus on avoiding negligence even if the considerations over those matters were at such an early stage, when negligence was properly a matter for the courts; she said it was phraseology which was given to her at the time, and it seemed to have made its way into her statement. (So, like with other Government witnesses, was your statement all your own work, or was it just another document put in from of you and you simply signed it off?)

On the appropriateness of commissioning an internal investigation which asked officials to investigate people they had been working closely with for so long; she said, “yes, is the short answer", clarifying, “it was appropriate”. (She said more, but …)

On whether she met any people who were infected; she said she had one meeting with the Haemophilia Society and then she was too busy. There were some chance meetings, but she ought to have had more meetings and that was something she needed to take away.

On whether she considered calling for a UK Inquiry; she said “No”, she didn’t want to introduce further delay, but neither did she think everyone would be sitting where they were 20 years on.

On holding a Scottish Inquiry; she said more stuff about Devolution then admitted she forgot the thread of the question.

On the internal investigation and Prof Keel’s admitting to taking at face value what the clinicians said, and if she was aware that that was the extent of it; she said there was some real investigation, but that particular example “sits in a slightly different space” (... meaning?) It was a first step, then it was open to be challenged. (Oh really.) Counsel tried again on the question. This time she had two things to say, neither of which made any sense whatsoever. It was obvious the witness was aware how thin the ice was upon which she was slipping and sliding. While some in a similar position had turned red, this witness went ashen. Maybe you have to have blood in you in order to go red, unless you are a stone. Then she went off on a self-cleansing exposition on the vagaries of political life in the UK, including how “there is so much in Government which is defective, such as “Departmentalism”, “too many filters” before things get done, “dysfunctionality”, some processes being “utterly ineffective”, “system failure”, and by the end of this blood-letting there was also a marked diminution of her posh-ish accent.

On her actions after the publication of the internal investigation report, including not meeting people to explain to them the fact that she saw it as a start of a process; she said nothing worth typing.

The Chair had no questions of his own.

The witness said she thought she had said enough and had nothing to add. But then she added more words anyway.

The Chair thanked the witness for the detail of her answers and the context she was so concerned to give.

It often seems like there is never enough time to ask a witness all the questions he or she could be asked. Perhaps in this case, with it being the last day of school before the summer holidays, the staff thought we needed to finish as early as possible. And this certainly was not the witness to egg on with endless questions where maybe only 10% of them would result in a meaningful answer. So on this occasion it was perhaps merciful. However, all other things being normal, the Inquiry could have asked Ms Deacon about what happened when campaigners tried to raise public awareness of their cause in the Scottish media. She clearly did not appreciate criticism, which was unfortunate since there was plenty of scope for that. It’s just that on too many occasions when there was a media opportunity lined up, it was mysteriously pulled. Coincidentally, this witnesses’ partner was a senior member of the News and Current Affairs section of BBC Scotland. (He is currently the Head of that team.) People could not avoid wondering if this power couples’ pillow talk included some undue encouragement to make certain stories disappear in case they cast a certain Health Minister in a bad light. Just wondering.

(Note: before the end of the oral hearing session, and while this “let’s not pay them” witness was stuck in the hot seat, the Chair spoke about his decision to make an interim recommendation to the Government for interim payments to go to all those registered with the four schemes, including the bereaved. The minimum amount for this to be £100,000 per person. We wonder what Ms Deacon thought of all this as she faced core participants. Well actually, nobody really gave her a thought, apart from one person who cornered the witness before she could escape the room and no doubt gave her his views in no uncertain terms, in exactly the way she had not.)