Jeremy Hunt
WS Questions
0.4 - Did it occur to him that the fact that HMT thought there could be costs running into billions, suggested that someone, at least, thought an Inquiry might find some degree of fault / culpability?
In hindsight, would he accept his initial approach was the wrong one?
0.5 - “meet the expectation of families” - Was he aware that many families would be / were totally excluded from any payments / support and were “insult”ed?
13.6 - "A number of funds provide support for those affected" - What did he understand “affected” to mean? Who did that cover?
16.6 - Given this, would he accept the structural nature of the support schemes was inappropriate?
24.2 - Isn’t this a rather odd view given that DH, seemingly, had the power in 2016/2017 to unilaterally shut down and disband the MFT/Skipton etc? Or at least the perception of such power led to that.
35.6 - Would he at least accept that it would be expected that those infected and bereaved family members would be responding to that consultation?
I ask this as the Impact Assessment and consultation response makes no references at all to bereaved parents, children etc. Even though many definitely took part in the consultation, they were simply ignored.
Additional
WITN3499013 (p10) - Can he explain why the bereavement payment was only being considered for families where there was a surviving widow?
WITN3499026 (p14) - There doesn’t appear to be any consideration here for those who have lost parents or children.
"those who are in most financial need" - How could this be determined where no consideration is given to others affected, for example those who have lost both parents.
WITN3499029 - (p3) "The Cabinet Office has asked Departments to ensure that information is not unintentionally disclosed, which might open the Department to litigation or penalties"
Would he have been surprised by that suggestion?
Did the Cabinet Office have the authority to make that request?
How does that approach fit with transparency?
WITN3499029 - Was there any concern raised at this time, from the information contained in this document, that the previous line, issued for years, that “all documents are in the public domain” could not have been correct?
Shouldn’t there have been some kind of public statement to acknowledge this at the time?
DHSC0050028 - This document is dated 7th July 2017 (and Jeremy Hunt also uses that date in his WS). However, the document cannot be that date because it makes reference to the all-party letter Sunday Times article on 9th July 2017 (p13). It seems likely given the further information in the document that the correct date may be 10th July 2017.
DHSC0050028 - (p12) "The Department has published all relevant information that it holds..."
Does he read this as saying that’s what the DH line was, or what the DH line still is?
DHSC0050028 - (p13) - The reasons given for “increased pressure” for a public inquiry in the opening paragraph are “Grenfell tower fire” and “recent media articles”.
Was he aware of (Front Page link) the front page Daily Mail article on 4th July 2017, was it brought to his attention? (Full article here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4662690/Patients-infected-contaminated-samples.html)
Was he aware that the Daily Mail article was raised as an urgent question in the House of Commons on the same day (“Given that the criminal acts that, allegedly, took place are set out on the front page of today’s Daily Mail, is it appropriate for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and say what action he intends to take?”) - https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-07-04e.1040.1
Was he aware that on 10th July 2017, again referring to the Daily Mail article (“First, the Daily Mail set out evidence last week that officials knew, as early as 1980, that 50 people with haemophilia a year were being infected with hepatitis C. Nothing was done about this for five years.”) Diana Johnson was granted permission by the Speaker of the house for an urgent debate the following day? (“The hon. Member has obtained the leave of the House. I can inform the House that the debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 11 July”).
To what extent did he become aware of the group legal action referred to in the DM article: “the papers, which are likely to play a central role in a major civil action to be lodged at the High Court today, in which 300 families of victims are suing the Government”
Did he note that Mike Dorricott was featured in the article?
Further to my email today regarding overly redacted documents. Another such document is WITN3499027.
