Sir John Major

WS

1. 3.41 - When and how did he reach the view that what had happened to haemophiliacs was “fate” and “bad luck”?

   1. Does that remain his view now?

2. 4.7 - As he recalls he “talked often to the chief whip” - Can he provide his recollections of any/all conversations he had with the chief whip about  “the campaign”?

3. 5.2 - can he explain what he means by “the need for action would not have allowed for a contemporary public inquiry”?

4. 5.2 - can he explain why he says HCV did not merit one?

5. 5.3 - Can we draw his attention to HSOC0004580

   1. Ask for his views on the response

6. 5.4 - Was he aware of…

   1. the formal apology made by the government of Japan (which happened while he was PM / reported in british press) 12/10/1995 - https://www.newspapers.com/clip/103681983/the-independent/

   2. The publication of the US Inquiry [HIV and the blood supply]  (which happened while he was PM) - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232417/

   3. The prosecution / sentencing of JP Allain? Early 90s (which happened while he was PM)

Non-WS & Additional

1. What is his understanding of why, in 2019, the Cabinet Office were sending infected blood documents dating back to 1990 to his office? (re one of my foi’s for HMT papers)

   1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dTcM7VwYRrEorWyVCL8h6aW0QSCDJKBK/view?usp=sharing

   2. Is it normal for papers which are thirty years old to be sent to former PM’s?

   3. Does he recall seeing / having any particular thoughts on the documents which were being considered?

2. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dXaqeRLGeJA_enzece7Yv4ot6xlF8uVW/view?usp=sharing

   1. Does he recall this enquiry?

   2. In any event, does he think the response was appropriate?

   3. Did the government undertake any initiative to determine how those impacted felt in relation to this or was it simply guessing?

   4. Does he have any views now on whether a memorial would be appropriate?

3. DHSC0003961_011

   1. What did he mean by “in terms of equity”?

   2. What did he mean by “implication of negligence”?

4. (Handwriting at the top) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BYX777DXYSBi98YNzhr6Vua4SazgPuiL/view?usp=sharing

   1. Why did HMT consider DH’s handling of the settlement to be “Vexing”?

   2. Why had it turned out “as well as (or better than) expected”?

   3. Why was it felt needed to make clear to DH that “this was no way to do business”?

5. HMTR0000002_020

   1. In relation to the second point “it is very much plaintiffs' counsel's initiative” - is essence, he was saying, we can’t announce this until the plaintiffs actually know what is going on, because they may disagree with what their counsel is suggesting?

      1. But in fact, they did announce before plaintiffs knew, why?

      2. How likely is it that the tabling of the WMS by Waldegrave bounced him into making the announcement against his better judgement?

         1. Could this be why HMT felt DH handling was “vexing”?

6. HMTR0000002_021

   1. Handwritten note at the top - Can he assist with what it was that is referred to as “the waldegrave proposal”

   2. Can he help with why the alternative form of words stated at §3 were not chosen?

   3. What are his observations in relation to §4?