25 July 2023: Quin - B

St Jeremy of Quin, the Gatekeeper General, said he wanted an ambitious timetable for action, but he did not want to publish it in case it was not met. It was put to him that this was unhelpful, not least for the infected and affected who were left with a dearth of detail or hope for help being forthcoming. Counsel put it to him that it appeared as inertial and apathy, and as he faced the audience he faced, he could do nothing but concede the point. He felt he had not been in a position to disclose and ultimately to hit his internal deadline of May 2023, and it turned out it was missed. He was still not able to commit to a timetable but is “really keen” to make an announcement “as soon as possible”. Counsel reminded the witness of the impending Parliamentary timetable, the possibility of a General Election, and possibly a change of Government. He was again pressed for more than “as soon as possible”, but he admitted he is not allowed (he didn’t use that word, but that is what he meant), to give a date. The witness did say that certain key building blocks were agreed by Cabinet (without saying what they were), and he expected a “substantive” response to come.

The Second Interim Report was recalled, specifically the timescale factor (Recommendation 18). The witness was asked if the Government had effectively rejected the call to begin setting up the processes for compensation now. He referred to the comments of Penny Mordaunt suggesting that Primary Legislation and inclusion within the King’s Speech might well cause necessary and inevitable delay. The witness hinted at the implications for a response of so much money potentially being required, but quickly added how appropriate that was. Waiting for the Final Report, and then responding to everything, would push back the timetable much further, it was put to him. Matt Hancock’s commitment that the Government would pay compensation if recommended was referenced. That recommendation on compensation had now been delivered. Counsel recognised how the witness could not make policy from the witness stand but asked him to take back to colleagues the proposition to that they “uncouple” compensation from other expected aspects of the Final Report Recommendations. It was suggested that the Final Report is expected to not be positive about Governments’ role in the matters being investigated by the Inquiry.

A bombshell for the witness was the suggestion – or suspicion – from many that the Government wants to delay responding to the Inquiry until after it has finished its work so that it gives the Government the scope to disregard the Recommendations with impunity since the Inquiry will no longer have powers to put pressure on it. Surprise, surprise, the witness said that was not the thinking.

The question about the numbers of people who might be eligible for compensation was reviewed with the witness. He had some hesitancy in confirming his understanding that the group of compensation recipients would include people not already registered with the current schemes. Counsel swiftly confirmed that reality in case there was any doubt. The questioning turned to Government modelling to better understand the likely or possible costs involved for the total bill for compensation. The press articles suggesting very large amounts cited an unnamed civil servant. He did not know who it was, nor did he feel able to either confirm or deny anything. It was put to the witness that cynically some might see this as an attempt by the Government to turn the population against the infected and affected in the face of a cost-of-living crisis in case the Government were to make announcements of amounts which fall short of what victim-survivors feel should be paid. He was “very frustrated” to see what he said was “speculation” appearing in the press, and it was “unhelpful”.

Focus was given to the call for new interim payments for the estates of those parents and children who have so far received nothing. Despite the questioning by Counsel, there is no plan for Government to make an announcement for those cohorts until the full response is ready to announce. Hearts in the room fell at his inability to recognise the obvious unfairness of delaying for these groups.

His words were recalled that the first round of interim compensation was just the beginning of compensation. He was asked to confirm the logical inference that the Government have therefore decided to pay compensation. His wry grin and the audience’s audible smirk provided a modicum of light relief to what had been an increasingly frustrating and mind-darkening session. Of course, he would not commit, but did his best to say what he knew the people watching him wanted to hear him say, … without him actually saying it. The apparent hypocrisy of Government in making platitudinous statements that they think people want to hear, but then not taking on board the very issue of acting quickly because time is an enemy to so many of the infected and affected was put to the witness. It was suggested that this was just a case of kicking the issue into the long grass because it was too complex or too expensive. He said he had seen no evidence of any attempt to kick this issue into the long grass. (It’s not as if that has not been going on for at least 40 years.) He was then asked if the Government had assessed the amount of savings it was making by delaying. This was a poignant pin-drop moment. In his most serious tone, the witness said he was very aware of the number of people who were dying.

All that remained was questions from core participants, after a break to gather these.