5 July 2022: Waldegrave - A

Lord William Waldegrave counts as a Conservative Party “grandee” and an acknowledged intellectual among his peers. He moved through a series of Ministerial posts as befits a Parliamentary big-hitter. Not mentioned was made of his key role in election victories, including having a strong hand in writing manifestos. He came into the Department of Health (DH) as a result of an unplanned reshuffle at the time of the Margaret Thatcher leadership crisis. This meant that there was no time to have civil servants put together a formal handover briefing, as would be expected to happen, for example at a General Election.

He began an answer to one of the first questions from Counsel by saying, “I apologies, like others, at having a poor memory”. Surely this was a foreboding and pre-emptive safety clause which also illustrated a degree of collective awareness of this condition being placed on the evidence to be given by these folks. It is odd that this writer does not recall many, if any, of the victim-survivors suffering from this memory issue; and that is despite the frequent examples of them experiencing executive brain disorder (brain fog).

As with other Secretaries of State, he held regular meetings with his team of political appointments called “TOTO” (“top of the office”) meetings. These included his ministerial team and sometimes the Permanent Secretaries. These meetings were not minuted (how convenient), but perhaps some action notes were taken. In relation to the links to the devolved administrations, this was mainly through civil servants. The witness reported that he saw life from the perspective of a “spending minister” in the DH, then as a cost-minded minister as Chief Secretary of the Treasury. As before, he operated in a period of budget pressures (ho-hum) and so there was never really much room for manoeuvres. At budget times, views would have already been exchanged between civil servants before programmes were negotiated. Then there would be roughly two days for each Minister to meet face-to-face with the Chief Secretary to work out the finalised budget for their Department. Any unresolvable disputes were sorted out by the “Star Chamber” of the most senior Ministers. In the witnesses’ day it was Chaired by William Whitelaw. On occasion and as an exception, a call could be made on the reserves/contingency.

Once again, the BSE Inquiry was referenced, with the witness having given evidence to that Inquiry. The questions at this point were about receiving expert advice. Lord Waldegrave explained how there was a group which he served on during the time of Edward Heath’s Premiership which was led by Lord Rothschild of the famous banking family, (but the particular Rothschild was himself an eminent scientist). There was also reference to Lord Peter Hennessey, an acknowledged expert in Parliament (and a former university lecturer to this writer). The witness summed up one aspect of their guidance and writings on this way Government worked by saying that you had to do everything reasonable to confirm that the top advisers were giving the best advice, but also to be aware of “outliers” which always are around in any field of science. Outliers are at the fringes of views, they are occasionally right, but most often they are wrong.

In relation to people coming at an issue from different perspectives, he gave an example of a scientist who was interviewed by Sir Robin Day. In reference to the interview content, Lord Waldegrave said that the views expressed by the expert had not been influenced by Government. Is he inadvertently hinting that some expert views are influenced by Government? The example illustrated how the risk of a relatively small number of additional deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster was being reported as a less weighty matter by the scientist, but the journalist (Day) became excitably vexed by this admission. This led to a discussion more generally about the decision to publish or not publish information which included some potential new health risk, but which might be reported in the media as either scaremongering or a new urgent threat, and therefore perceived by the population as either political manipulation or simply very frightening.

Counsel recalled the summarising by Baroness Bottomley of the character of Ken Clarke compared to this witnesses’ different approach, then linked this back to the BSE Inquiry evidence he gave. Counsel is clearly seeking to investigate the significance of expert witnesses inputs in helping Government to form policy or make decisions, and the respective role of Ministers to make sure the advice is the best available. It was noted, for example, that when a CMO says something then that is their own informed view. They have a statutory right to express their own views, and we assume this provision was meant to be a safeguard to political interference.

On the matter of context to when the witness was given the Health post, Lord Waldegrave came into office at DH after having spent full days working (and sleeping) at the Foreign Office concerned about the risks of British troops being exposed to chemical warfare in the Gulf War. So, that conflict had been a major concern of his back then. The other big issue was Health Reform. When he was appointed to Health, Margaret Thatcher told him, “Kenneth (Clarke) has stirred them all up. I want you to calm them all down”. (Was this a case of the right job for the man, or was he the right man for the job?)

The line of questioning shifted to infected blood. Lord Waldegrave admitted to having no greater knowledge of these issues than the rest of the population prior to coming into the Health role. He started by recalling the devastating stigma associated with AIDS. The actual health problems were already overwhelming, but the social stigma issues were also terrible for those affected. This matter was something for him to start to deal with on the fourth day after his appointment. (What was more important that it was not raised with him on days one, two and three?) “You need to settle this thing,” was advice the witness recalls from his mother, and Lord Waldegrave felt he needed to apply this to the matter of people who had been infected by contaminated blood via their NHS treatment. The witness continued his answers by saying, “The Officials said to me ‘No more anecdotes, please’ but I will give another one, if I may”, then he spoke about a person he knew who contracted AIDS, but not through blood products. Is this another insight into the level of preparation being given to Government witnesses prior to them appearing before the Infected Blood Inquiry? Have they even gone so far as to manage how these witnesses answer, or don’t answer, any question?

The witness inherited the line that while people who had been infected had the right to bring legal action, the view was that they would not win a case for negligence. He did acknowledge the freedom – at least in principle -  for a new Minister to reply “I hear what you are saying, but we’re going to do things differently”. Sir Harry Ognall’s (Justice Ognall) unusual intervention was significant in that it was not so much a legal opinion as a pragmatic view. It seems the lawyers for both the Government and the plaintiffs were surprised but not shocked by his view as expressed. The witness accepted that this was already a cause in the public domain. Lord Waldegrave mentioned an obituary in that day’s Times for the Times’ previously retained lawyer on their campaign over the Thalidomide case. He was the one who helped the Times to recognise the need to shift the focus of their reporting away from a legal claim and more of a moral case claim. This had emboldened the Times and led to the greater success of their campaign. (This seems to be a view from a senior legal professional which is at odds with the views about campaigning as expressed by Justin Fenwick.)

It seems that the officials back in the day certainly recognised the shift in position between Ken Clarke and William Waldegrave on the matter of pursuing a settlement; and a settlement more generous than might have been contemplated by his predecessor in the DH. This wily witness knew that it would help him to have on record that he had pressed for a settlement, especially if in the future the Government was forced to do a U-turn. Politics sure can be a messy business at times.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

26 July 2023: Sunak - A

25 July 2023: Dunn - B

17 November 2022: Panel on finding the undiagnosed - A