15 July 2022: Burnham - C

After retaking his seat, Andy Burnham looked over a half-full Hearing Room, catching the occasional eye.

Counsel went back to the Options paper written by Rowena Jecock (grrrr). She couched her document in terms of the difficulty in finding the money, the risks, and what would happen if Mr Burnham continued (“if you insist”) to press ahead. She had created such a long list of reasons which would be problematic and led to her recommending not to bring forward the Skipton Review, repeating it several times, that this writer must conclude the civil service training school surely has included a whole semester in maintaining a “Can’t Do” attitude. The witness says he “finds it quite outrageous” the total absence of concern for people in dire need. “They” were pressuring Ministers in a way that made the witness angry. “Why are families in this room still fighting?” he asked and added “I hope the Department is uncomfortable at re-reading that document”. Rowena J, what do you say? The response of the witness to the Options document was to ignore the advice and seek to press ahead with the full Skipton Review. He recognised the support of Gillian Merron in the face of a Department who were clearly trying to stop the likely out-going Ministers achieving what they wanted to do. To this end, a Written Ministerial Statement was put down on 6 April 2010 initiating the Skipton Review. The General Election was on 12 April. During this period of evidence, Mr Burnham spend a long time cleaning his glasses while not once losing eye-contact with Counsel.

As a result of the Andrew March Judicial Review, it was found that the DH lines, given to Archer, to Ministers, used in letters, and elsewhere were wrong. “It was a serious matter, a very serious matter … putting that on the record,” he said. The witness said it added up to a “cover-up”. When asked how Ministers might overcome the strongly given advice from officials, he said you just had to “stick to your guns”. The witness agreed there should have been an Inquiry far sooner. He mentioned how he had the many examples of police changing evidence to allow him to kick off the Hillsborough Panel. He didn’t have anything like that for contaminated blood families until the meeting in his constituency office. He clarified that when he had used the word “criminal” at a previous time, it did not relate to those he was working with at the time of him being Minister. But cases of people not being told of their infection, and possibly having infected their loved ones, then eventually getting hold of medical records with references to assumed drinking habits, changes to records, missing records, etc., that was his reason for speaking of a criminal cover-up. The witness asserted that there was a case for an independent body to have a role in deciding when an Inquiry is required. Counsel had asked about the rightness of leaving it up to the very Department of Government who stood accused of possible errors, having control of the decision whether to hold an Inquiry. “Something is wrong here. The system has too much control,” he asserted, adding that elected members needed to have more control. He wanted a “statutory duty of candour” to protect those who recognise when things are going wrong. Counsel quoted from the Bill initiated by Mr Burnham (sometimes called the “Hillsborough Law”) which has not made it to the Statute Books yet. Bishop James Jones, Sir Robert Francis QC and others have supported a duty of candour bill, as well as parity of legal funding. He referenced the Maria Eagle proposed Bill seeking to establish a Public Advocate. He sees this as necessary, not just to bring justice, but to avoid the years of cover-up that so often follow, the extended suffering of those affected, and the actual financial costs that result from letting things run on and on.

The witness was reminded about some of the times he had spoken on the matter of contaminated blood in the Commons. Counsel referred specifically to his final speech before leaving Parliament. He had said he could not live with himself if he had not spoken up about the guilt he and others should feel for not acting sooner. He stressed his view that it was all about the Government not spending money because the Government knows, should the full truth to come out, the weight of public opinion would force it to take responsibility and pay up. It leads to victim-blaming, ongoing injustices such as testing without consent, records being destroyed or somehow disappearing, and more. Mr Burnham stuck by every word of his final speech, including the headline making phrase that it was a “Criminal cover-up on an industrial scale”. He said the DH has been “grossly negligent” of its duty to ensure the safety of people in this country, and even that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) should investigate the possibility of “corporate manslaughter”. This statement attracted a second round of applause. There was a hint of a wobble in the witnesses’ voice as he listed a series of failings of Government. He said it is more than a moral responsibility (acknowledging the limitations on Robert Francis’ ability to say more than that in his Framework Study Report). There is a very solid case for legal action, in his opinion, which he had thought long and hard about before saying and re-saying.

He recognised the positives which should come from the Compensation Framework Study, naming Penny Mordaunt for her decision. He recognised Theresa May for announcing the Inquiry, albeit with his input too; recognising how she worked with him on the Hillsborough matters. Mr Burnham paused in his comments to highlight that despite these positives, it has been five more years of the Inquiry for people to wait for an outcome, and it is not finished yet. Recalling the Chair’s announcement earlier in the day he proclaimed, “Don’t make them wait a day longer,” which provided the cue for a third burst of clapping.

As the final break of the week was taken, it was noticeable the number of people with tears in their eyes. The more cynical, realistic, hardened types might see this testimony as the witness grandstanding by saying what people in the room want to hear and raising his political and leadership value in the public arena. Maybe so. But clearly there are others who have had enough of the recent stream of political and civil servant witnesses with their platitudes and placatory excuses and see this witness as a very welcome break who arrived on a white charger to champion the cause so many others of his peers and predecessors have frustrated. Maybe so. Where do you stand on the Burnham blockbuster?