19 January 2023: Closing Statements, Katie Gollop KC (Haem Soc) - B

Upon return, Ms Gollop referred to the statement by Dr Woolford about the non-awareness or lack of recognition of the numbers of haemophiliacs who had died and would die from viral infections. Yet there was a suggestion about another section of Dr Woolford’s evidence which did not recognise the asserted haemophilia “special case”, with Ms Gollop giving it the status of “whataboutism”. There was also reference to the meeting with the HS and the Minister John Moore where he was reduced to tears after hearing the stories of three infected young haemophiliac men and their fears over a premature death. The point was made that the Government had argued it was better not to pay compensation to people who would die, but to direct the money towards better treatment, yet at the same time the Government were resisting calls to fund recombinant.

 

The HS recognised some dismay over the past stance it took in relation to the HIV litigation issue. It’s aim was to get something for everyone based on moral not legal grounds. Time was against people. The litigation route had major problems due to the difficulties people would face in obtaining Legal Aid. Ms Gollop recalled the unrequested input from Frank Field MP who noted the very challenging responses being received from the Government. The moral case argument was not a usual tactic experienced by Government from advocacy groups.

 

Reference was made to the accusations against the HS that it was not meeting the needs of its members in relation to the Contaminated Blood Scandal. Two lengthy statements are to be published by the Inquiry coming from Kate Burt the current Chief Executive of the HS and these seek to address the concerns. There was an open invitation for anyone to discuss their issues with the HS. The concerns resulted in splits, and this resulted in different campaign voices and approaches. It was suggested that the different strategies and messages had contributed to the progress towards the Inquiry happening.

 

There was a period when people with HCV felt forgotten under the enormity of the HIV victims’ issues. There were conflicting responses to the way the HS took forward its campaigning, as illustrated in letters from an edition of the HS Bulletin. Overall, the sense was that the HS was too compliant, and not strident enough in its efforts. The carpet of lilies campaign was seen as effective (this writer would beg to differ). The HS suggests that its focus on the moral case and not legal routes has turned out to be the correct course to take.

 

Ms Gollop then made reference to the HS apology in 2017. This was followed by her mentioning an intention to issue another statement following from the 2017 apology, but that would wait until the Inquiry had made its findings public and available to the HS. It was noted that the HS “is its members”. The HS Board members also suffered infections and losses. On behalf of the HS, Counsel praised the tireless work of the campaigners, and named various charities and campaign groups whose efforts it acknowledged and thanked.

 

On financial support, the HS calls for the continuation of ongoing payments. It noted the title of the Francis report mentioning “compensation and redress”. Ms Gollop ran through a long list of features for the compensation scheme to follow from the Inquiry. This included not taking into account past payments as compensation, people not having to be assessed further, that it should include all those impacted by contaminated blood, be easy to access, provide psychological support, and include the involvement of the infected and affected in scheme processes including appeals. In spite of the current financial constraints on the public purse, the message suggested to the Chair is that, “delay doesn’t pay”. There was also a list of non-financial asks for inclusion by the Chair, including some around training, palliative care, and more.

 

“Speak up, listen up, follow up” was recalled as a mantra of a previous witness. It was seen as essential for the responses of Government to the Inquiry to be monitored and scrutinised, and that should be by a competent expert and by those infected and affected. Learning from the input of Brian O’Mahony was recalled as having several very useful lessons learned from the Irish experience. There was no desire for “queue jumping”, but there was a need for a “passport” for people infected by the State. Mention was made of a recent case where a funeral director refused to deal with the body of a man who had previously had, but had “cleared”, von Willebrand’s disease. Clearly, there was still work needed in that regard.

 

A number of structural proposals were made, including in relation to the establishment, operation, and implementation of future Public Inquiries. There was also mention made of the tendency for civil servants to advise Ministers not to meet victims or campaigners, and the need for this to be changed. On the connected matters of “candour, redress and consent”, reference was made again to Jeremy Hunt and Cumberlege. They called for a cultural shift towards candour. A call for a redress agency was rejected by the Government. It pointed to the Infected Blood Support Scheme (singular?), probably referring to the English Scheme (EIBSS), as justification for its capacity to carry out this type of response. It highlighted the blindness of the Government to the complete inadequacy of the Schemes, not least as publicly exposed through the Inquiry. There was reference to the control under the guise of privilege which the Government holds as a legal technique and which results in a lack of transparency and restriction on further claims. Whether they say they are at fault or not, they will not release the report, claiming privilege. In relation to consent, the statement returned to Cumberlege and in particular the case of mesh treatment. It was suggested that the Government response to the consent issue raised by Cumberlege be reviewed by the Chair since it might need to be strengthened.

 

Ms Gollop moved to the matter of the civil service, noting that it had not been an ally to the infected and affected. The Peter Burgin report for the Government on self-sufficiency was made available too late to feature in the final submissions. It appears to have been “sexed-up”. A final draft was circulated, but only to a select group and not the HS. It was noted that Dr Frank Hill was disclosed as a contributor, but he did not disclose his own issues with being the subject of a claim. At the time he was the Chair of the UKHCDO. This fact appears to be a parallel to the exclusive and potentially bias input by experts referred to for their advice. The question was asked how this could have happened. It was suggested that the lack of a duty of candour on civil servants to provide accountability ran counter to an open society. Reports do not include the name of the author or the contributors. There is also no automatic chance for contributors to review a draft to correct inaccuracies.

 

In conclusion, Ms Gollop summarised the key issues. There is further work to do, even after the Inquiry ends. Support needs to happen quickly. It must include helping people to deal with the realisation of what doctors and the State did to them, including the untruths. The statement returned to the Bishop Jones Hillsborough report, particularly on the concept of “closure”. Closure may be too lightly treated as a concept. It is much deeper, and while the Inquiry report publication will be a contribution toward some kind of closure, it will not be the end of the matters.