William Waldegrave
WS Questions - JE
There is a slight but key difference between what he says at 4.1 & 4.2, as opposed to what is said at 4.6. That is the difference between wanting to settle the issue (4.1 & 4.2), and, wanting to settle it at “acceptable cost” (in 4.6) .
Can he confirm the weight given to “acceptable cost”, and ultimately who would be the primary decision maker “acceptable” was it himself? Notwithstanding, approval may need to be sought from HMT. Similarly, he refers in 4.11 to “reasonable settlement”.
4.12 “Mrs Thatcher was content that the matter be fought out in Court” - Was this primarily because officials had advised that no one had done anything wrong and there was no fault on the part of DH?
4.18 - Does he agree that the haemophilia society did not represent all of the plaintiffs? And, separately, didn’t represent any of the plaintiffs in a legal sense at all?
Was it his understanding that the haemophilia society itself was not a party to the litigation?
4.22 - This should be 1990, not 91?
4.33 - Similar to my point 2 above, his understanding of Mr Clarke’s view - Was this primarily because officials had advised that no one had done anything wrong and there was no fault on the part of DH?
4.33 - When he talks about a not “unreasonable level” - unreasonable to who?
4.35 - Last sentence. How did he know then that any of the “plaintiff victims” wanted to settle? More specifically on the terms present?
4.38 - find the other “500” reference
Is there a tension between what is said at 4.47 (2) “their counsel’s proposal” and what is said at 4.44 “plaintiffs steering committee of lawyers offer”?
What was his understanding of exactly who was (presentationally at least) making said offer?
4.51 - Did he ever consider the government should seek compensation from pharma? After all, the infected products were purchased using public money.
If no, why not?
4.53 - Does he accept that without agreement from plaintiffs, the government was in essence announcing a settlement for which there had been no valid or complete agreement?
Does he agree that an announcement in such circumstances could amount to undue influence?
Does he agree that everyone (outside of those in government involved in the litigation) would have viewed the proposed settlement in very different terms had certain facts been made known to the public?
For example, the “500 sufferers” line
The actual internal view in relation to possible negligence / fault? Eg That Gov counsel advised there was “obviously quite a lot of neglect”, “terrible gaps” etc. In other words, the picture gov painted publicly, did not fit reality?
4.56 - In relation to his “written statement” (WMS) - Does he accept that “normal practice is to notify the House a day before”?
Would his WMS have been on the previous day's order paper? (Perhaps the IBI is able to find this out)
*IF* a WMS (by Waldegrave) had been submitted - the day before the announcement by John Major, would this have put the PM in an uncomfortable position of having to announce the settlement to parliament without agreement by plaintiffs, against his better judgement? Could this explain why DH’s handling was “Vexing” to HMT?
Other
During the time of the litigation, was it ever brought to his attention that some countries, such as Finland, had not introduced Factor concentrates due to the risk of Hepatitis, and subsequently had close to no HIV infections as a result?
(Handwriting at the top) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BYX777DXYSBi98YNzhr6Vua4SazgPuiL/view?usp=sharing
Why did HMT consider DH’s handling of the settlement to be “Vexing”?
Why had it turned out “as well as (or better than) expected”?
Why was it felt needed to make clear to DH that “this was no way to do business”?
Was that relayed to him personally? (That it was “no way to do business”)
