13 September 2022: James (Anita) - B

The witness moved away from the difficulties she had faced in DH and on to the Department for the Environment. But the issues related to her time at DH refused to go away. She stated in one memo that she did not have “any skeletons in her cupboard, just old files” and that one had “come back to haunt her – Hepatitis C”. Ms James acknowledged that her use of language might appear flippant in that instance. There was continuing to be an attempt within DH to recreate missing files and there was a move to contact Dr Metters. It was interesting to note the inaccurate assumption of what “DoB” in a memo meant. No, it does not stand for date of birth, rather it meant “distribution of business”; whatever civil service dark-art that relates to. Again, the witness was asked why she had not thought of going to Dr Metters herself since he might well have had helpful copies to fill the gaps. Ms James said she had been concentrating on looking among the registered files. There was also a comment about Dr Metters papers being handed over to someone else but then them being destroyed by the staff of that other person. Another useful insight emerged about inconvenient papers being destroyed which related to the BSE Inquiry. It eerily mirrored the situation of the Contaminated Blood missing files. Surely, this is an issue for the Expert Group on Public Health and Administration. When she was invited to comment on what looked like deliberate document destruction, despite colleagues being positive that she herself had not done it, the witness began to answer, “All I can say is, …” which did not fill anyone with confidence as a start to an explanation. The body-language experts can draw their own assumptions from the associated rubbing of her nose when answering.

This witness appeared to have all the correct qualifications for her role. But throughout the questioning there are instances of her not doing what would have been reasonably expected to be done. Time was clearly an issue but was it just down to that. This writer cannot help questioning the competence and capacity of the witness as well. What else did she work on in her career that might not have received the steady hand of full competence, and so might have been subject to errors or omissions? A look-back exercise might be required.

Mr Canavan was noted to be a great resource from helping to locate files due to his time and experience in the DH, but he too had not been considered as a person from whom to seek documents. On the suggestion of there being no plan or general call for documents to reconstruct missing files, the witness rejected the suggestion that their approach was “ad hoc”. This was followed by Counsel mentioning a number of other people who were belatedly being contacted who might have reasonably been considered prime sources of documents earlier in the process. Professor Zuckerman had been “very helpful” said the witness, but even his name arose via Sandra Falconer from Scotland.

The destruction of the BSE papers returned, like a skeleton from a cupboard. Apparently, the files were destroyed by the person involved due to the trauma the whole episode had caused her. It seems that to avoid a similar trauma-inducing experience, the Dr Metters papers were destroyed just in case there was a repeat. Taken together, it seems that certain files including all copies were accidentally or coincidentally (or should that be systematically) destroyed (or should that be filleted) out of existence. The parallel with the systematic “loss” of specific types of patient records screams out like a deceased person’s spirit which cannot find a resting place. Can we call this evidence of a cover-up? Maybe we should adopt the psychologist’s technique; if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it swims and flies and has feathers like a duck … it’s a duck!

Some of the more thoughtful and analytical campaigners have described certain witnesses as being hung out to dry by those of their masters’ masters who consider themselves above being held to account. Ms James was increasingly appearing to be moulded as a useful blame-taker. So useful, perhaps, that even when she moved to Environment, she could not escape the millstone securely attached to her neck of missing files related to contaminated blood. Assuming she moved to a full-time role in the new department, what did her employers there think of her being pulled back so much to her old job. Of course, that job clearly held significant negative memories not least due to the overworking and bullying factors. Then there was the potential reputational impacts, the prospect of liability for legally impactful maladministration, and the possibility of carrying the can for not just her own incompetence. This writer wonders how much impact these matters have had on the overall health and wellbeing of this witness. So much for a restful retirement.

Then there was another surprise package related to who did the destroying of the files. It turned out that the commonly cited explanation that it was a “junior” member of staff who did the deed, was just an assumption. No names have ever been attached throughout all this saga. No name, no accountability, no paper-trail, no oversight, and so of course, no evidence. By 2002 this matter was still causing activity by civil servants both to continue scrabbling around trying to reconstruct lost files and to discover how it happened they were destroyed in the first place (and from the second place, and from the third place).

Counsel had concluded their questions sooner than expected. The Chair briefly asked about the external circumstances, including a Panorama programme which would have highlighted the importance of these matters to far beyond a group of civil servants in the DH, but also to those actual civil servants if they had not already appreciated it internally. The witness recognised how with the benefit of hindsight that might appear so, but she maintained that at the time people did not give the records the credence they deserved.

The lunch break provided a convenient opportunity to gather additional questions from core participants.