6 July 2022: Waldegrave - B

Finally, finally, it was core participant Question Time.

On the disquiet at the low level of the settlement amounts from the infected community representatives and it being a deal they had to accept; he said, firstly by way of a displayed letter, that the proposal had come from the plaintiffs’ lawyers but he also acknowledged how no amount of money could compensate for the detriments caused, and that the amounts to be made available to the Macfarlane Trust would continue to be reviewed. (It is incredible to have discovered after so long that the payments were not a result of a Government decision but had originated from the lawyers acting for infected people, plus the fact that these proposals were passed over without the full knowledge of their clients, will be staggering to so many people. How could the leadership of the Haemophilia Society not have known this and instead felt the need to raise it with the Minister? Why did this communication not raise alarm bells with all those people working at the DH with their good faith that something was wrong?)

On the concept of “corporate memory” given the turnover of Ministers so that the memory is held by officials; he said he recognised how the “house doctrine” could be helpful since the thinking had been done already, but it could become entrenched which would take a strong Minister to change. (This writer recalled the evidence of Lord Horam (?) who said it took 18 months of being in post before a Minister knew what they were doing, and three years before they were properly on top of the work. How often does that happen, particularly given situations like the spate of Ministerial resignations happening during Lord Waldegrave’s evidence?)

On the sense of things being seen as threats; he said his children had once given him a Christmas present of Eeyore’s “Little Book of Gloom” (a Winnie the Pooh reference), then a year later they gave the exact same gift to him again the next Christmas. He took this as a sign of his prevailing mindset developed from his political experiences; certainly, as far as his family was concerned. He characterised himself as a bit of an Eeyore, rather than a Tigger. He thought that maybe this confirmed the meaning behind the question as being rather accurate.

On Government spending, and who actually makes the decision; he said it was a mix of Ministers in Departments, the Treasury, and those sometimes long-standing officials. He said that “history” had a part to play due to the way things had always been done and referenced the slow-turning ship as described by John Major. Some of the slowness in spending was for good reason to ensure decisions are justified. He admitted to having had a part in the Poll Tax legislation and recognised it as a thoroughly bad policy. He did this to illustrate how Ministers had to take responsibility and not hide behind officials. (This is an interesting example, especially for any Scottish readers, and an even more interesting admission. We know how some officials have been the barrier to making progress with campaigning and advocacy. Yet when people attempt to circumvent these gatekeepers by writing directly to Ministers, it is the same officials or their bosses who control what a Minister sees or does not see, including the circumventory communications. So, what he seemed to say was that Ministers must be assured of office systems ensuring civil servants’ roles not be the problem, and if Ministers don’t, it is still right for them to take the blame for not having a way of knowing what they were not being allowed to know.)

On the matter of the Scottish haemophilia litigants being an afterthought, and that the Scottish litigation was behind the English cases; he said it probably was an afterthought at the time but cited the speed with which events were happening. He could not answer in detail about what stage things were actually at, but he recalled how conscientious Ian Lang was in his role. The witness admitted it would have posed a problem if things had gone in a different direction in Scotland.

On the possibility of any litigation being successful and where the money to pay-up would have come from; he said he could not say for sure, but supposed if it was a huge legal defeat it could not have come out of the Departmental budget, so a call would be made on the Reserves.

On the benefit of having an independent view to challenge received Whitehall wisdom; he said there was some move in that direction by the appointment of Commissioners, or “Tzars”. Parliament was meant to do that scrutiny and challenging but on occasion it relied on certain strong and independently-minded individuals, such as Tam Dalyell.

On deciding who received care and who did not; he said there were challenges when priorities were competing, for example, there were benefits to treating drug problems, but that was set against other health needs which people might be more comfortable with funding. He went on to describe those who worked in Government departments as people who almost always had a genuine interest in the subject and wanted to do what was right.

On the presentation of new health treatments to build confidence among patients about their use; he said there were real advantages to encouraging people to have confidence in a treatment, but there are also examples when it is right to have concerns, such as vaccine damage. There are also cases when rumours or misinformation causes people to avoid treatments. He gave the example of how measles was effectively eradicated during his time as Health Minister, but due to false messages about the MMR vaccine, it was no longer a non-issue in the UK.

On the speed with which the announcement was made of extending payments; he said it was inevitable for some people to have only heard about the payments through the media, giving the sense that it was a done deal. He referred back to his response about the need to avoid leaks and the reliance on the plaintiffs’ lawyers to communicate and get the backing of their clients.

The Chair had only one area to explore further and this related to the need for openness in Government, including how it related to the witnesses’ self-deprecation of being more of an Eeyore than a Tigger type. He said it would always be wrong for the Government to lie to the people. The Chair sought for a view on a more middle-ground situation like the emerging realisation of blood being the cause of people getting infections. The line was to say there was “no conclusive proof”, and some might say it was deliberate obfuscation, but on the other side it might have been right to seek not to panic the public. He found it hard to comment on the example without seeing the papers in detail, but he acknowledged the difficulty in general of saying something with certainty when it came to scientific matters. He cited the criticisms John Gummer had faced for showing his children eating burgers at the time of the BSE crisis. The overarching principle should be to be open to revealing the evidence so the Government could not be assumed to be hiding the data so as to manipulate its interpretation. Lord Waldegrave quoted John Maynard-Keynes, who said, “When the facts change, I change my mind”. (The actual full quote is, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” for anyone interested in these things.)

The witness commented how impressed he was at the quality of the questions put to him. He reflected how, in the 18 months he served at DH, even when people disagreed, they always did so in good faith. His view was that those in the DH thought they were right about what they did at the time, but with a kick or two from him as Minster. He said that confidence in the health service could only be maintained while the population considered the people running it were doing so with the best of intentions. Finally, Lord Waldegrave thanked the Inquiry staff for the way they had supported him, and he made special mention of Laura.

The Chair agreed that Laura fully deserves the particular mention by the witness. He thanked the witness for the very helpful information from an insider perspective into how an idea can be progressed into an action by Government. He was also thanked for his fascinating insights.

Only those in the room would know about the water which began to drip on to one of the empty chairs in the Hearing Room through a ceiling panel. In the absence of Catherine Nalty who might normally be expected to deal with such matters, the responsibility fell to Jennifer Cole, the Inquiry Secretary. This writer, who was only a couple of feet from the drips were falling, could not help but ask Jennifer if this was also how leaks happened in the Cabinet Office. She smiled, others laughed, lunch beckoned, and it was an early end to the day’s evidence.