5 July 2022: Waldegrave - C

“I don’t think any amount of money can compensate them for what happened,” said Lord Waldegrave as Counsel sought to understand what the money to be paid out was actually for (a question this writer and others have raised on a number of occasions). The Chair intervened to point out an apparent mistake in a displayed paper, not a mistake by the witness but by the writer of a Q and A document. The witness said it was certainly not to be considered as “compensation”, especially in the legal meaning, but simply an ex-gratia payment (but the intended purpose for the new payment is still to be clarified beyond it being a way of paying for a problem to go away). By coincidence (maybe), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was one David Mellor. The practicalities of making payments, including legal costs, and it all coming from the Reserves was the topic of communications from Ian Lang, the then Scottish Office Minister, since it would require administrative and distributive clarity.

At the same time there was a “spat” with the Treasury (David Mellor) since he wanted to reduce costs further, to not allow the issue to move into a new financial year, to not pay the legal costs, and to not cover unknown claimants. The language was couched in typically civil civil servant language. In reality, Lord Waldegrave was “very cross” (which itself sounds understated as normal people would speak, perhaps saying “apoplectic”). The witnesses’ civil servants had inserted a potentially placatory compromise paragraph in one of the communications, but the witness took that out. He did not want to convey to the Treasury any possible shift in his position. Internal Treasury documents suggest Mellor’s officials had to advise him, again in typical euphemistic language, to back down. He did, with all the predictable mealy-mouthed justifications as he did so. Talk about macho political posturing and saving face at all costs (so long as ‘all costs’ come from the Reserves, haha). Mr Waldegrave was not finished there. When it appeared that DH lawyers were being blamed as others licked their wounds for the situation happening, he ensured that too was countered. He was certainly loyal to his troops and determined to win both the battle and the war.

For the settlement to be accepted by all plaintiffs it was determined that it had to be at a level of 95% to 99%. The DH was not imposing an actual condition on everyone agreeing to settle, but in reality their lawyers, their peers, and their access to Legal Aid (because the arrangements would count as a “fair settlement” so Legal Aid would be withheld or even clawed back), then anyone who still wanted to go to court really had no choice. It was as close to an ultimatum to waive any rights to court action as you could get. That’s called a “fair settlement”, right? With this kind of comprehensive “bum’s rush” treatment of people, maybe that is why it has been said, “the law is an ass”. This element of people being compelled to get into line with an assumed majority view is the closest this witness has come to being actually challenged during his evidence. Counsel continued by pointing out how the resulting payments were not even equivalent to an average annual salary of a regularly healthy person. For the first time the responses from this witness are less assured and drew a mumbled reference to potential future help being needed.

Next came the dreaded “waiver” issue. The witness had previously mentioned that he only got involved in the contaminated blood situation when there were problems; such as had been the case to intervene with the Treasury. He did not think he knew the waiver was part of the process, let alone a controversial factor. While acknowledging the witnesses’ non-involvement in the waiver, Counsel pursued the matter by displaying some of the documentation of the details of what was to be included, and then asking the witness to comment on his understanding of the properness of seeking for people to sign away their rights to a further virus infection situation when the Inquiry had evidence that non-A-non-B Hepatitis was already known, and there were people who may have been tested but not told of their infection. Lord Waldegrave felt he could not comment.

On the matter of communications with the Territorial Departments on these matters, Counsel referred to ongoing claims, for example in Scotland. The witness did not have knowledge of these and there appeared to be no written record of him being told, but he could not say for sure there had been no discussions. He mentioned how there would be minutes and other documents, but there would also be many unrecorded conversations in the normal course of doing business in Government. The witness confirmed his understanding, based on the announcements in Parliament, that it would be a UK settlement with no requirement for the Territorial Departments to contribute. However, the steering group taking it all forward had been exclusively English-based (which covered Wales too). The cases in Northern Ireland and Scotland (with its own legal framework) had not been taken into account. Through the Scottish Office, the Scottish cohort, for example, said they had not had the opportunity consult and their lawyers could not guarantee that all of their clients would sign up to, for example, the waiver. In his statement, Lord Waldegrave had acknowledged the problems of not involving all areas of the UK together and that he had part in this oversight.

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