14 July 2022: Milburn - D

Continuing on the topic of support for people infected with Hepatitis C by the NHS, there was a November 2002 meeting between Alan Milburn and Helen Liddell (Secretary of State for Scotland). There was also an informal discussion in the margins of Cabinet, but he couldn’t remember what about. He knew the Ross Report had been published, and this was against the backdrop of effective campaigns in both Scotland and England. He expected the relevant Minister and officials were dealing with the Ross stuff. Counsel tried to get the witness to recognise the importance of appreciating the thinking behind Lord Ross’ call for financial support. The witness said he did not want to make the English folks be seen as being mean or mealy-mouthed, by the Scots had come up with a different conclusion over what should happen compared to England (by which he must mean Whitehall). The “English” had decided to focus available money on the treatment and care of people with Hepatitis C and not on compensation. And there it is again. Saying that paying out for your Department’s past mistakes is just taking money away from current patients. How dare you. Counsel tried to help the witness realise how it was not a binary choice. He said he acknowledged that, but by the way he continued his response, he clearly didn’t mean it. He talked about the need to balance the finances and all the possible ways of spending the limited resources. He must think we are all stupid. This writer went through a phase during the witnesses’ evidence of thinking he was not as bad as some people had made out. This writer was correct. He was indeed not as bad as that. He was actually worse than they had said. The intelligence he wants us to assume he possesses is either a pretence and a gross over-estimate, or because of that intelligence he must know he is being a slippery, scaley Gove (specifically, serpentes milburnii).

Not long after replacing the witness, John Reid changed the approach and decided to make payments. Counsel asked Mr Milburn if he looks back to see he was or might have been wrong. Like so many of the others without a reflection in a mirror, he could not bring himself to admit a mistake. He cited the contextual circumstances and the difficulties inherent in the factors at play related to the decisions to be taken. He was asked about the “moral” aspects but dodged the question by saying it was too hard a question. As before, he thought the best thing to do was to talk about a load of natural fertiliser that sounded philosophically clever but was really just guff.

Counsel asked the witness to comment on calls for a Public Inquiry, with documents being displayed to show a range of times when requests were made for an Inquiry. The witness said he would never have seen the letters to him because they would have been classed as only meriting a response from an official. He gave a wishy-washy response about it being raised as an issue. He wanted to focus on the other important matters, such as recombinant. Before being asked (he must have watched the questioning of other witnesses) he said that depending on the emergence of any new facts, or a question over significant unresolved issues, he might have moved towards an Inquiry, but he wasn’t so moved, mainly because there wasn’t an obvious need for it, and he relied on the well-established departmental line. He recognised the powerful and effective campaigning, including by his colleague Alf Morris, but he was not convinced. If he had the chance to go back, he said he would make the same decision to not hold an Inquiry. (Would there be any value in hearing anything else from this man?)

The matter of Carol Grayson saying she was told she could not attend Question Time because Mr Milburn would refuse to go on if she did was raised. He said he had “zero” recollection of it and had checked to see if there had been a QT episode in Newcastle which he was at and could find no evidence of one. He also disputed the claim she was “treated like a pariah”, suggesting she actually had been part of groups who had met Ministers. (This writer imagines Mr Milburn’s claims will not be the last word on this matter.)

Somehow the witness got back on his new hobby-horse of the need for some kind of forum to discover what the truth actually is. This writer would respectfully suggest that the witness try going on a walk along the road to Damascus.

Counsel posed a question that went beyond the Public Inquiry which sought to explore the enormity of the Contaminated Blood Scandal by recalling the scale of what had happened and asked, “How the hell could that happen?” The witness must have shares in the electronics industry because his thoroughly disingenuous efforts to give an answer would surely have let to a load of TV and computer screens having boots or hammers thrust through them by those watching in angry disbelief at the complete and utter rubbish this witness said. Come the revolution, Mr Milburn has made a strong case for himself being at the front of the line to stand against the wall.