14 July 2022: Milburn - E

The day ended in the usual way with questions from core participants:

On paying vCJD victims because of saying food was safe, but not applying it to other infections; he said the issue of HIV/HCV not being safe was “contested”, and it was a “fine line” decision. These questions were continuously being probed by people like Phil Hunt, John Hutton, Yvette Cooper, he said. And vCJD was fatal. Counsel had to restate the question. The witness did the clause/pause thing again and managed to say nothing of any useful meaning (an emerging pattern).

On departmental “lines to take” sticking around too long and what would be needed to overcome that; he said there was the adage of “officials advise, Ministers decide” ( and?) He mentioned the briefings he initially received in preparation for Health Questions being full of praise for the previous Government, which was just a continuation of what had gone before. He had to change that. So, said Counsel, there was no mechanism to change these. To which the witness answered (or didn’t) … blah, blah, blah (more meaningless waffle).

On the variety of groups who might have sought similar outcomes to schemes such as The Macfarlane Trust, etc.; he quoted Charles Lister, “We can’t go on making more and more precedents,” … and, blah, blah, blah.

On Alf Morris and why that esteemed colleague had felt to take on the issue of infected blood; he said Alf Morris was a great campaigner, … blah, blah, blah.

On him saying that the situation was known possibly being considered by others to be an over-simplification; he said he thought it was largely known, and despite the Chair again restating the question, Mr Milburn answered with more blah, blah, blah.

On the situation of an accused Department getting to make the decision about holding an Inquiry or not; he said it was a good question and he would need to think more about it. He also said … blah, blah, blah.

The Chair had a couple of questions. How best does a Department of State learn from the mistakes it makes? The witness said “transparency”, like how the Infected Blood Inquiry was a “transparent thing”. But about what should happen afterward an investigation, he said he didn’t know, then went on to say things as if he did know. There was more he didn’t know so said it. Secondly, he said more stuff. And the final thing he wanted to say was about “external scrutiny” … blah, blah, blah. The Chair interrupted to say, “That’s what I’m asking about.” The witness responded, “What did you have in mind?” Sir Brian said, “I’m asking you.” It was like watching a Two Ronnie’s sketch; with no doubting who was the “straight” one and who was the “clown”. So, off the cuff the witness had a go at an answer that was all about blah, blah, blah. And the second off the cuff comment was not worth trying to capture. “Yes,” said the Chair, subtly sardonically. The witness was invited to do any additional thinking he had hinted at and then to request a Rule 9 request so it can be captured.

The Chair’s second question was about Lord Hunt. Was Lord Hunt more sympathetic than the witness? The answer began, “Not that I’m aware of …” but before he could do more blah, blah, blah, Sir Brian said, “So, the answer is ‘no’, well that’s enough”.

The witness said everyone had probably heard enough from him. (He saved the truest truth until the end.) He wished the Inquiry success.

The Chair thanked the witness for his wishes of success, especially since if he had had his way the Inquiry would never have happened. Sir Brian said it had been “riveting”. (There’s just no topping that punchline.)