26 July 2023: Sunak - A

And in walked the Prime Minister (PM), at exactly 2pm. One minute later the Chair enters. Sir Brian said a few words of thanks for the special circumstances related to access people had to endure due to the additional security arrangements. The PM gave the oath following his own religious affiliation.

Counsel contextually reviewed how the witness had stated that his knowledge and involvement relied on other Ministers, however he had received more recent briefings in preparation for the appearance today.

The first questions went straight to the communications from Penny Mordaunt when she was Paymaster General (PG). These highlighted in strong terms the need for action at the time and not to delay.

Before answering, the witness wanted to say how he recognised this was, “An appalling scandal … people have suffered for decades” (and other fine words not backed up with action). In relation to the letters from the PG, he did not see them under the normal situation of a triage to filter the correspondence going to the Chancellor. “Justice delayed is justice denied” was quoted from the letters. He did not know the detail of the level of need and deaths at the time, but avoided answering if he agreed with the sentiment of the quoted words. The letters had also raised the need for the Government to begin early action to prepare for compensation. Of the three asks, he noted that £125 million had so far been spent on the Inquiry (he certainly knows that cost), that money was made available to bring parity across the four nations (which he wrongly said had been achieved), and that the matter of compensation has been progressed. (Just like that, there is no issue so what’s the problem?)

It was noted by Counsel how the Government was put “on notice” of compensation being required, at least because of the letters from the PG. The wording of the letters was seen as strident, but the first letter was labelled as only being “for information” while the second letter was somewhat more regarded. The witness was reminded that support payments were not the same as compensation. Questions returned to the matter of the sense of urgency and how people had waited for far too long, but the witness seemed to recall that the PG had stated in Parliament that compensation would be paid after the Inquiry had reported. (“Slimey” is the word coming to mind.)

The Compensation Framework Study was next up for consideration. Michael Ellis had taken over as PG and announced the intention to publish the Study report and the Government response in time for people to read these before Sir Robert Francis KC gave oral evidence. The chronology was presented of how this intention had shifted to a position of waiting until the Inquiry report is received. The years intervening have added to the stresses and people have died, so Counsel asked, “Is this good enough?” He could not bring himself to say “no” or “yes”. The long-winded answer included deflecting blame away from himself without an answer; “I was not responsible”. Counsel pressed him again for a simple answer, and he tried to set off again on a meander. A large body of the audience made a collective noise of dissatisfaction. Regardless, he wanted to stress the need for the process of the Inquiry to be completed. People attempted to call out questions. The Chair took control by asking if the witness agreed that there should have been quicker action. The witness sort-of agreed but then returned to the safe-haven of banal platitudes as if that would placate the audience. The witness stressed the need to allow the process to conclude. Again, the questions were repeated about the original plan which had been to be ready to act at the point of the Inquiry concluding. Eventually, he was almost able to say that the Government was not yet ready (with the help of the Chair), but policy work was ongoing, yadda, yadda, yadda. He could not say much since it is not his direct remit. (But wait, he’s the boss!)

The levels of frustration were palpable, so much so that the Chair felt the need to remind everyone of the established tradition of allowing witnesses the respectful opportunity to answer. Mr Sunak refused to make any comment about anything from before he became PM, ignoring the fact that he was Chancellor. (This writer cannot help but conclude that we have surely discovered the main blockage to making progress with compensation – Chancellor Sunak – who is now seeking to absorb the kudos for the measly progress over the last few months.) The witness kept going back to the interim compensation payments. These payments must be the most highlighted crumbs to fall off a table, ever.

A series of questions sought to expose the untenable position of not acting on compensation until the final report. Mr Sunak stuck to his line that it was the right position to wait for everything, with nothing more until then. As previously, Counsel raised the issue of the fear that one reason for waiting is to let the Inquiry end is so that it no longer has powers to affect the Government. The witness appeared to not be affected by the underlying suspicions. He would not say that the Recommendation (Number 18) to set up the scheme prior to the Final Report had in effect been rejected. Eventually, Counsel asked the witness to take the question back concerning the issue of not paying any more compensation until the end of everything. For about the fourth or fifth time, the witness was offered an answer which sought to reflect and encompass his long-winded non-answer. (The wall of stone was growing taller and thicker from the PM; the patience, hopes, and energy of the audience was becoming thinner and more fragile.)

Attempting to get some kind of meaningful something from the witness, the Chair created a hypothetical scenario of him having to further delay the end of the Inquiry. Would the Government then be in a position to respond to the compensation Recommendations before the Final Report? The response was something, but it was not meaningful.

The need for leadership to drive matters forward included citing Penny Mordaunt, Jeremy Hunt, and Kit Malthouse. The PM is key to this. If he or she really wants something to happen, it will happen. With this backdrop, the assertion of Penny Mordaunt that these matters were a priority for the PM was recalled. Mr Sunak said it was. (This writer wonders if it is “his priority” to make sure people get the support and compensation he says they have waited too long for, or, is it “his priority” to minimise the financial exposure of his Government, with the infected and affected being collateral damage in the bigger picture of his Government’s mismanagement of the economy which caused the cost of living crisis and cuts on top of cuts. It seems we are simply to suck up the costs of misguided austerity and decades of neglect by all Governments by shutting up, or more speedily dying.)

There was a short break for technical reasons. Upon returning, the Chair took the opportunity to remind people that the Red Cross service was available for anyone who might require to speak with someone. Hopefully, Mr Sunak understood the underlying message of that announcement.

Counsel clarified the meaning of Penny Mordaunt’s assurance. She then went on to the interim payments. Initially, she quoted the witness when he was standing to become the PM, and comments related to Thalidomide victims about acting quickly and minimising any effect of leaving people not knowing what is happening. He said he stood by what he’d said about Thalidomide, but quickly stressed how it was in a certain context. He obviously saw the trap being set. From this, Counsel homed in on the call for initial payments for those estates not covered by there being a spouse or partner. Before asking the question there were quotes from two examples of people who have never received any money, such as children and parents of the deceased. “Is there any good reason for the Government delaying making these other interim payments?” asked Counsel. The witness started by mentioning his own children, but then shifted the tone of his answer to one of insipid coldness. He surely must realise how bad this looks, but maybe he is not really cold-hearted, because you need to have a heart for it to be any temperature.

In the face of obvious obfuscation and blatant bombast, the witness was again asked to take the matter of the call for further interim payments for the estates not yet recognised back to the Government table. He set off on more words of sympathetic pathetic-ness to make people think he cared, then stuck to his non-committal guns, even when it was just a matter of accepting a principle.

The next focus was about the leaks in the media when contrasted with an earlier commitment by Jeremy Quin to give regular updates to the House and the APPG. Counsel noted that if that had happened then these extra hearings would not have been necessary (mic drop … but probably missed or ignored by the witness). He was shown examples of recent leaks involving large sums of money citing civil servants, but he could not say anything about these leaks – however, he managed to do it saying too many words. He would not say if an investigation had been opened, or if one should be opened. His answers seemed to position himself as not being in control or able to make decisions. It is other people to deal with these matters (… “nothing to do with me”).

The final speech of Andy Burnham was again quoted. He had chosen to make it on the subject of the Contaminated Blood Scandal. That was six years ago. In response to the long delays since then, the witness suggested how right it was for the Government to initiate the Inquiry (as if their arm was not forced to make that announcement). He also managed to bring in the first round of interim payments again, like that should be enough. “At pace”, and “as soon as possible” as favourite phrases of Government were recalled. Counsel tried to seek some kind of idea of the timescales. Mr Sunak probably thought he was pulling a fast one by quoting the Inquiry Chair in terms of working with thoroughness but also swiftly. The Chair corrected the smart-mouthed schoolboy by saying that he had said “reasonable thoroughness” … boom.

As when Jeremy Quin gave evidence, the PM was asked how committed the Government was to pay compensation in line with the commitment of Matt Hancock. The witness wanted to sound like he was saying yes, but that could not be confirmed until all the information was available. (Presumably there is nobody in Whitehall currently making sure that there will be something unexpected to allow the Government to change its unconfirmable commitment (an incongruous pairing of words) so that there will be a “get out clause”. This feels like sociopathic or even psychopathic levels of avoidance in the face of undeniable need created, and harms caused, by the very State which is seeking to abdicate its responsibilities to some of its most vulnerable and deserving citizens. Shame on them all.)