14 July 2022: Milburn - B

Next up was a series of letters on the matter of calls for compensating people for having been virally infected by the NHS. Frank Dobson as the preceding Minister of State had re-established the line of rejecting such calls due to the assertion that there was no liability. When Mr Milburn became the boss at DH, he had been sent a letter reminding him how, when he had been in opposition, he had signed an Early-Day Motion calling for virally infected people to be supported. The question in the letter was to seek for him to be true to that previous position. Mr Milburn said he never saw the letter, despite it being personally addressing to him. He cited the many letters Ministers received and said despite how it might seem strange, it just would not have been possible to read and respond to all correspondence. The response would likely have been drafted by a civil servant and signed by a Junior Minister. He said that even letters from MPs would often be responded to by officials and the relevant Minister would only be involved in signing it. The response had a justification (not seen by the witness at the time) explaining away the reasonableness of Mr Milburn having at one time been a supporter, but once in office reverting to the departmental line.

There was a brief overview of some of the various procedures which are followed by the UK Parliament, including an Adjournment Debate and a Westminster Hall Debate. Debates in Westminster Hall were more for discussion on issues not split on party lines. The Commons were not tied to anything that came out of them. For information, Westminster Hall is like a tall cathedral with wooden rafters. A few years ago, the rafters were cleaned, and a very old shuttlecock was found to be lodged up there. It was speculated that it had been there since Tudor times, when Royalty used the Palace of Westminster more like a big house for their use. It was further speculated that the badminton game had involved King Henry VIII, who was a keen badminton player, apparently. It’s a nice story for the tourists.

Counsel shifted to a “Restricted” document on policy related to blood, and in particular the anticipated vulnerability of the Government, especially in Scotland, of having been slow to introduce screening tests. The preferred option seems to have been to go for an out-of-court settlement. It stated a strong likelihood of the Government losing a court case for any infections after the 1991 cut-off date. Considering the small amounts of money involved, Counsel wondered why it had gone to the witness as Minister of State. The key matter was the issue of potential court action where the Government might not win. In actuality, this did not result in any settlement because the whole matter was overtaken by other events. The key civil servant dealing with these issues was Charles Lister (the same Charles Lister who Rowena Jecock, yesterday’s witness, did not see as having a conflict of interest to later becoming a Trustee of a scheme to make payments to infected people - doh).

The main assertion had been that the Government had done nothing wrong, yet Counsel pointed out how the emerging legal cases were pointing out the unsustainability and inaccuracy of the advice from officials who kept putting the no-fault statement in briefings and policy documents. She wanted the witness to reflect on how, once the key pillar of the defence was shown to be wanting, there was not any questioning about related assertions. The witness reverted to his clause/pause way of answering. It led to another long-winded prattle from him, supposedly as a diversionary tactic to try to make Counsel forget what was being exposed. No chance.

“This particular part of the submission seems to have gone through a series of iterations,” said the witness about his own witness statement. He was being asked about a necessary factual change to his statement. His words, if heard correctly, would suggest the witness had less than full involvement drafting in his own statement. This writer could be wrong, but it is not the first time Government witnesses have appeared not to be personally invested in their statements (think Lord Clarke, for example).

On this matter, the Chair picked up on the implications of a civil servant having written a phrase in an earlier version of a document (the cause of the error in the witness statement), and later removing that phrase. It suggested the official (Charles Lister?) had had second thoughts about the safety of leaving that phrase in the quoted document. That in itself may demonstrate some degree of insecurity with the received wisdom.

A confidential policy document was displayed with hand-written annotations by Mr Milburn. With all due respect, the “writing” was a real mess. However, the witness had no problem reading what he had scrawled. Perhaps he should get a job at GCHQ to ensure sensitive communications cannot be read by enemy spies. The actual content of the confidential document related to vCJD and the possibility of the need for the Government to pay compensation. It led the witness to review how horrific a death by vCJD was, and how relatively swift. Mr Milburn was clearly seeking to tread some thin lines between not getting into a game of who’s virus is more deadly than someone else’s, and of not minimising how life-limiting viral Hepatitis could be. He recalled that once vCJD had taken hold of a person, it took about 13 months for them to die, and it was inevitable that they would die, often being a young person, and involving very traumatic stages of deterioration with no hope of treatment or recovery.

Shifting sideways towards when there were viruses that did have available vaccines, the witness mentioned the difficulties with how vaccines were manufactured, including the use of reagents perhaps coming from another living organism or species, that might themselves carry infective or other risks. On the associated issue of telling the public about public health risks, he said there is often an assumption that openness is good, but he gave the example of the post 9/11 period when there was considered to be a risk of chemical or viral weapons being used in the UK. It was a hard decision to balance the prospect of biological weapons being conveyed to the public, or not doing so in case it results in mass panic. Big brother knows better.