24 July 2023: Mordaunt - A

First up at the oral hearings which were not meant to happen was Penny Mordaunt. She was the Paymaster General (PG) for a while meaning she was the sponsoring Minister for the Infected Blood Inquiry. As if that title was not grand and archaic enough, her job now is Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons. On occasion she even gets to carry a sword.

Sir Brian’s introduction began with a stark statement of his tripartite reasoning for these extra hearings; to consider the nature, adequacy, and timeliness of the Government’s response to the more recent calls from the Inquiry for action. (Did he mean to say, “the Government’s response or non-response …?)

Ms Mordaunt’s Ministerial CV was briefly reviewed, focussing on the role of Paymaster General. At her time the role was one of dealing with civil contingencies covering Covid, leaving the EU, and a variety of other matters. It also covered being the sponsoring Minister for the Inquiry. It was noted how she may have been the only Minister to have attended the oral hearings of the Inquiry without being formally called to do so.

Counsel referred to Hansard for 27 June 2019 when Diana Johnson raised the issue of “compensation now”. The phrase “Compensation Now” was used several times by Counsel and seems to be a useful hook on which to hang the matters being considered. The witness was not yet in the relevant role (of PG) at the time, but she became aware of the call for some action “now”. Reference was made to the meeting hosted by Oliver Dowden, who was her predecessor in the role of PG. (This writer and many others were at that meeting.)

There was a brief pause for technical reasons because the screen showing the referenced evidence documents was not working on Ms Mordaunt’s table.

A letter from Oliver Dowden (PG) to Boris Johnson (Prime Minister, PM) referenced the meeting with campaigners. At the time, the “position” of the Government on compensation was to wait until the end of the Inquiry before making any compensation payments, if called for. The very next day the witness took over the PG role in a reshuffle. There was not a formal briefing on the matter of the position on compensation, but the witness came to see how the Government could do “a good thing” to look at this matter again and that view was not met with any resistance. Another displayed document was a reply to a campaigner suggesting that there was a desire by the witness to move forward on the concept of a “framework”.

Ms Mordaunt had been made aware of problems with the established financial support schemes, including on the matter of parity, and wanted to fix these. She also wanted to establish a framework study as soon as possible. It was noted that the Covid situation was just beginning to take hold. The witness was reminded of her words to others in Government that, “Justice delays is justice denied”. She was also aware of the ongoing death rates. Further, she had written about the likelihood of “substantial” compensation being expected and that the Government should immediately begin to prepare for this “inevitable” outcome. The witness had been aware of the overall issues related to contaminated blood, but as PG she learned more and more importantly, she was in a position to do something about it. She had set her officials off on a track of working with colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care on these matters.

Ms Mordaunt recalled her experiences at the Ministry of Defence when compensation arrangements were not adequate and the resulting court cases ended up costing the Government more than if they got it right first time. She wondered if the compensation arrangements for infected blood could be part of the existing administrative processes, but also she specifically highlighted the matter to the Treasury. Her correspondence did not get formally responded to, but there were conversations between officials. (Is this “but” a sop to get Rishi Sunak off the hook to some extent?). Compensation was seen as a significant matter, but it was noted how challenging the situation was in Government, not least due to Covid. (Hmmm so, Rishi Sunak as Chancellor was not responding, but there was a bit of a get out for him since there was a lot going on and the officials were apparently talking to each other … but was that talking to do with how to pay up or how to get out of paying up?)

The witness saw the need to “shout loudly” to progress the matters under her responsibility. It was a “stressful period” for Government in taking things forward – unless it related to taking forward Covid-related stuff. She recalled the sense of urgency and felt that the matter of compensation was worthy of being pushed, “this being our shift” (i.e. when her Government could act). There were no formal responses from the Treasury, but enough movement was possible through the well-established “write around” process in Whitehall for things like meeting additional Inquiry costs and establishing the Framework Study. Ms Mordaunt encouraged action by framing the issue in a wider context. She requested a meeting, but this never happened. The relevant Departments were “stretched” due to Covid. At the same time, the witness was telling campaigners that the issue of compensation for infected blood was “most fundamental” to her. Counsel asked why the witness felt the urgency of this issue. She saw it as “unprecedented”. She had seen problems with issues such as care homes and Hillsborough and did not want it to be the case for contaminated blood that it was “long overdue” for action. (That horse bolted long ago, actually.)

The session shifted to the specific matter of the Compensation Framework Study. The reason why there was some delay between these matters being raised and the Study being initiated was in part due to the work required to achieve parity between the existing schemes. Covid was also noted as a key factor. It was also mentioned that matters such as securing ongoing and new resources for the Inquiry required to be justified, in the face of suggestions that some activity could be done within Government, but the witness felt this response would not be appropriate. (It is interesting to see the constant seeking for control by Whitehall, even with – or especially for – situations when there is supposed to be independence from Government. This still seems to be the case, as seen in the resistance to an “arms-length body” for dealing with compensation to have control over so much public funds while that new body not being itself controlled by officials.)

The Study did take time to get going, but the witness felt they were going as quickly as they could under the circumstances. She felt the need to not get caught up in endless negotiations, but it did cause issues with having to not always satisfy calls from infected and affected people and their representatives, while also seeking to retain the confidence of those involved. Although Ms Mordaunt was moved and Michael Ellis replaced her just before the Study’s Terms of Reference were finalised, these did achieve what she thought was needed.

Reference was made to the stated expectation by Matt Hancock the then Health Minister, that if compensation was recommended then the Government would pay it. That was also the witnesses’ expectation. Similarly, her expectation for the Study report was that it would be published and responded to before the end of the Inquiry. She did not want a situation where it was not until the Inquiry had ended before work was initiated. She wanted urgent preparatory action, prior to the Inquiry ending, and that had been her intention in establishing the Study. Her motivation was to “minimise” the period between the Inquiry ending and people being compensated. The Chair intervened to seek clarity on the anticipated options to come out of the Study and what the Government might do with these.

Counsel briefly reviewed the recent history since the conclusion of the Study, its belated publication, and the publication of the First and then the Second Interim Reports of the Inquiry. It was confirmed that the witness had not changed her view that substantial compensation would be required. An example of the witnesses’ response to victims and their surviving families was used to demonstrate the commitment to the plight of contaminated blood people. It was not just the original harms of infection, but also the “layer on layer” of difficulties people have faced. She had wanted to reassure people – such as parents and children – that even if they had not been paid anything yet, they were not forgotten about. They should be “at the forefront of the Government’s mind”.

The principle of the four nations working together and “in step” after the work to achieve parity was seen as important to preserve, but Counsel noted the persistent lack of parity over psychological support in England. The witness could not comment on the current detail in that regard.

The topic shifted to the final speech of Andy Burnham and his reasons for making it about contaminated blood. He spoke about people being “left in the wilderness all over again” after being “led up to the top of the hill”. He had noted how the issue was always one of money, and how much more money people can be given (… to keep them quiet?)

Counsel asked the witness to reflect on the fact that six years had passed since Andy Burnham’s speech and a year since the publication of the Study. Ms Mordaunt recognised the “incredibly long time” that people have waited, but also spoke about the “immense stress” in Government. (With respect, this writer just cannot accept this justification. If they cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.) However, when pressed Ms Mordaunt said that compensating people “cannot happen soon enough”. She believes the current PG, Jeremy Quin, supports this need, but she also believes that the ongoing delay is still the denial of justice. She agreed with Counsel that continuing to not act is a “morally repugnant act”. Yet while the witness agreed it was, she then noted the requirement for Government to go through its established processes, some of which do take time, such as the need to go around the various Ministries. In her current role as Leader of the House, she does have influence on the Government’s business agenda, noting that matters like the content of the King’s Speech and the possibility to initiate legislation for the next session of Parliament were still not fixed. (Is this a hint to things to come?)

This concluded the questions by Counsel for the witness. An extended break was called to allow for questions from core participants.