3. Submissions by Ms Campbell, KC

Ms Campbell: Thank you, my Lady.

My Lady, by way of preliminary observations, I wish to address you briefly on the group whom I represent and the unique situation in Northern Ireland, in brief terms.

Lady Hallett: Just before you do Ms Campbell, I’m sorry to interrupt, I don’t know if you intended to be seen on screen but I can’t see you.

Ms Campbell: Oh. Well, if it helps, I can see myself, which I can tell you it doesn’t, but I can certainly see that my camera is working.

Lady Hallett: I’ve got you.

Ms Campbell: Sometimes it helps just to toggle a little bit longer. Thank you, my Lady.

I was opening to indicate that my observations will address in brief terms the nature of the group whom I represent and the unique situation that prevails and that prevailed in the North of Ireland. I’m not going to address every single item on the agenda and, to the extent that I do not, it doesn’t mean that items have been overlooked or that issues or concerns are not shared with those that my Lady has just heard from Mr Weatherby, King’s Counsel, or indeed that there are no submissions to be made.

For the purposes of this hearing, when it comes to issues such as Parliamentary privilege, when it comes to issues such as the disclosure management platform and, indeed, the listening project that Mr Weatherby has just addressed we very much adopt wholeheartedly both in written form and the oral submissions that my Lady has heard this morning and they won’t, as it were, benefit from repetition.

My Lady, as with the UK Covid Bereaved Families for Justice, the group whom I represent, together with others in Northern Ireland, has long campaigned for a full and frank public inquiry into the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and public authorities’ handling of the pandemic, with a significant focus on preparedness and decision-making and funding at all levels during the pandemic. I can reassure you, my Lady, that the Northern Ireland families remain steadfast in that aim and in that ambition and remain willing to assist the Inquiry to the greatest extent possible.

The Northern Ireland families represent a very broad demographic of Northern Irish society, by its very nature, those being individuals and families who have come together, united really by bereavement. The existence of this group, of course, postdates the onset of the pandemic but that’s not to say that their experience postdates the onset of the pandemic exclusively. The activism of the Northern Irish families was directed at key decision-makers in the North of Ireland and indeed beyond from a very early stage of the pandemic, in the hope that deaths could be avoided, in the hope that lessons could be learned as soon as possible to prevent other families from suffering as they did.

So a great many of our members engaged actively with decision-makers from the outset. Those included: senior officials in the Department of Health; arm’s length bodies; the public health agencies; RQIA, the Regulation and Quality Improvement Agency; and, indeed, senior politicians, both locally and in Westminster, the Office of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the devolved ministers.

So the point that we make is that it should not be assumed, and I don’t say that it is, but it should not be assumed that because our group came in to being after the onset of the pandemic, it cannot assist with issues around preparedness. Of course it can. The members of the group collectively, and some individually, have a great deal of in-depth knowledge and experience of how the complex Northern Irish health and social care systems operate, which of course are distinct from Westminster, and continue to operate in practice, and that knowledge has been acquired both prior to and indeed during and since the pandemic.

Of course, it’s striking that a very significant proportion of the Northern Irish families are made up of bereaved families who represent some of the most vulnerable in our society, including those who were elderly or those who are already in poor health or who were reliant on care assistants or who were requiring other essential healthcare interventions. So those whom we represent really were the voices of the deceased long before the pandemic struck and continue to have a great deal to say about the circumstances that prevailed at the time that the pandemic struck and indeed beyond.

So, my Lady will have received in recent weeks a detailed Rule 9 response that has been prepared by our group leads on behalf of the wider group. The aim and the hope of that Rule 9 is to set out in some detail how it is that Northern Ireland is different but also to remind the Inquiry and to remind your team, my Lady, that our family members have a significant amount to offer to this particular module, and the point that Mr Weatherby has made on our behalf, and indeed on behalf of the wider group, that the Inquiry should be looking to family members to see whether witnesses are available from within our group to assist and to put into proper context issues about preparedness, is one that is well made and that we certainly stand ready to assist with.

My Lady, I have made the point that Northern Ireland is unique and we very much believe that it is. It’s distinct, of course, from Scotland and Wales and England geographically and politically. It’s distinct also as a result of the experiences of, and indeed the engagement of, our civil society and, as such, the preparation for this pandemic and indeed for future pandemics can’t be aligned easily or at least entirely by experiences emanating, be it from Westminster or Cardiff or Edinburgh. Emergency preparedness in the North of Ireland is a devolved issue politically and a demarcated issue geographically. Both should be a matter of concern for this module.

It is reassuring, if I may say so, to hear Mr Keith this morning indicating that those issues have been heard. I make the point, and I don’t make it critically, but really that is the first occasion that we have heard publicly that our voices are being heard. But that issue of emergency preparedness being both a devolved issue politically and indeed a demarcated issue geographically is a matter first of concern. Firstly, because of the lack of any devolved legislation on the civil contingency planning and the difficult, if I may say so, political environment in which our devolved institutions operate and, secondly, as you have heard at previous preliminary hearings, because the island of Ireland geographically is a single epidemiological unit.

It is also right to observe, as has been observed this morning, that Northern Ireland, for a significant period before the pandemic, was unique, certainly for three years immediately prior to the pandemic, there was a vacuum of governance with no functioning executive and one concern of our members is that this has contributed to a failure to legislate to plug the gaps in statutory duties for civil contingency planning. Where entities, where bodies have power but not duties to prepare for and to respond to emergency situations, such as a pandemic, then it would ordinarily fall to a minister as being responsible for significant or controversial decisions about how to exercise those powers. But where there are no ministers, and no Assembly, there’s a lack of democratic oversight in relation to how decisions are being taken and taken, in particular, for preparedness and in due course for response.

So, my Lady, making these general supervisions is really to remind the Inquiry that the lived experience of Northern Ireland families and our membership must be considered because that lived experience within the context of Northern Ireland provides critical information and context for you in considering the issues to be addressed in Module 1.

I make clear that our members stand ready to applaud and to identify positive examples of preparedness and to expose areas of concern and to demonstrate where there were features of preparedness for the pandemic that undermine any assertion or any conclusion that there had been adequate planning or effective participation to implement plans and resilience in practice, and where there remains much to learn.

The reality is that the Northern Irish families are Core Participants in your Inquiry, my Lady, not only because of the magnitude of their loss but also because they represent an enormous repository of information, of knowledge and of shared experience that is of value to this Inquiry and, as a group, they have stood ready for some considerable time to contribute, to respond and to participate.

Really, we encourage the Inquiry, my Lady, through your team, to seek to harvest that information from our group, to seek to learn the knowledge and to share the experience in order to positively contribute to this process, not only in the course of the hearings in Module 1 but at this stage in the course of the preparation for those hearings because, without the voices of the Northern Irish families, this Inquiry when it comes to considering the issues, both in Westminster and in the devolved administration, we submit will be significantly the poorer.

Yet whether Module 1 commences in ten weeks’ time or in 14 weeks’ time depending on your decision today, my Lady, there remains a lack of clarity from our perspective about how and by what means preparedness in Northern Ireland is really to be addressed in Module 1. We are grateful for the insight that we have been given in the course of this morning’s hearing. We hope that it represents the beginnings of clarity and further discussions but, of course, when it comes to Northern Ireland within Module 1, disclosure is in its infancy. Witness statements are scant to non-existence and it’s not clear to what extent, if any, your experts will report on Northern Ireland-specific issues directly.

We are told that we must wait until all those reports and the witness statements have been received and considered and that will be our opportunity to contribute but, as Mr Weatherby has pointed out and with which we respectfully agree, allowing input only or mainly on receipt of witness statements, on receipt of expert reports, and when witness lists are being drawn up, and then potentially only in a limited way, is an approach which we respectfully submit is a flawed one at this stage and that reflection ought to be given to changing it.

May I address this by way of example through the Rule 9 requests because we reiterate the call for transparency and for clarity in that process and for disclosure of the detail of what have been recognised to be, this morning, both numerous and complex Rule 9 requests. But to know the detail of what has been requested of a Government body or of an individual or of an agency, particularly given that these are complex requests, would enable our engagement in ensuring not only that the correct requests have been made of the correct agencies but also that the detail of those requests is sufficient and to know the detail of what has been requested would enable us to have a better interpretation of the information that had been provided. When you know what has been asked for and you can compare that with what you have received, the recipient is better placed to judge the quality of the response and the fullness of the response.

To know the detail of what has been requested would also enable us to have proper consideration as to whether further questions or further issues or further follow ups ought to have been generated as a result of what is in that particular document.

We note by way of example in the helpful appendices to the CTI note, that there appear to have been a different ambit or certainly a different extent of consequences posed to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments. We don’t know why that is and why it is that in relation to Northern Ireland the questions posed or the topics that we have been given are narrower than to the counterparts in Scotland and in Wales. We can’t meaningfully contribute to that process, we would respectfully submit, unless we know what has been asked, of whom and in what detail.

My Lady, as if to further illustrate that point, we understand that our Rule 9 response, on behalf of our group leads, has prompted or indeed is likely to prompt further requests from other bodies. My learned friend, Mr Keith referred to this morning the emergency preparedness groups of Northern Ireland, who will now receive Rule 9 requests and that’s, of course, welcome news. It is reassuring that the issues that we have raised in our Rule 9 are being considered and indeed acted upon. But it’s simultaneously, if I may say so, concerning that such requests are being issued at this juncture and that they are being issued without our meaningful input, leaving limited time for receipt before the hearings commence, be it in May or indeed in early June.

So we would join with Mr Weatherby in asking you, my Lady, and your team to engage further with us in this process and to recognise the value that Core Participants can bring to the preparation for the hearings and not just to the hearings themselves being part of the process and understanding the ambit of requests. Shaping and contributing to those requests would best ensure that you, my Lady, obtain the evidence that is most beneficial to this Inquiry.

My Lady, linked to that is the issue of expert witnesses and I can be relatively short, given the information that we have received this morning. But we observe again, as we’ve done in written submissions, that there doesn’t appear to be any Northern Ireland-specific expert witness. Rather, Northern Ireland is to be considered as part of a report from Professor Marmot and Professor Bambra in the context of their opinion on health inequalities in the UK and the devolved administrations. Of course, we look forward to receipt of that report and we were told this morning that that will be towards the end of March. But we do question at this juncture whether consideration of Northern Ireland as a chapter or a section or a theme of a report will really be sufficient to address Northern Irish preparedness, given the complexities of the region, both geographically, politically and otherwise.

We can only raise that as a question at this stage, of course, because we have very limited understanding of the remit of those experts and their instructions. We don’t know what they will have to say and we will not know for perhaps another six weeks. So therefore, again joining with Mr Weatherby, we reiterate the call for clarity as to their instructions. We reiterate the request for disclosure of their letter of instruction, which we observe really is a common and reasonable request, so that we understand not only what they have been asked to do but that we have an idea of the materials that they are relying on in reaching their conclusions whether those materials have been identified by the Inquiry or as part of their expertise and, very importantly, so that we can have a sense of whether the Inquiry in Module 1 will have sufficient expert evidence in order to fully understand preparedness in the Northern Irish context.

My Lady, in relation to Rule 10, I again adopt the submissions that Mr Weatherby has made. It is reassuring to hear this morning a greater degree of clarity in terms of the opportunity at least for families’ questions to be posed by families’ representatives. We make the point on behalf of those whom I represent that they request that their voices are heard and it will be an important part of your function, my Lady, given the need to address preparedness in the devolved administrations, that regional accents are heard as part of this process asking questions on behalf of and posed to those whom they either directly represent or on whose behalf decisions were being made.

My Lady, as to timetable, the recognition that this Inquiry will not be ready to start in May is – “welcome” is perhaps the wrong word but it’s certainly understood and we respectfully agree. May I finish with three things that we submit are required to ensure that the timetable is met for the start of June, if that is to be your decision, but also to ensure that there is a maximum use – sorry, a maximum effective use, I should say, of the time that is available from whenever we start until the point at which Module 1 is concluded.

The first request is that there should be no slippage in the timetable for disclosure, or witness lists, or expert reports for lists of issues, and we say that recognising the enormity of the task that is in hand in terms of preparing disclosure and in terms of ensuring that witness lists and the like are complete.

Already this morning there is a slippage from early to mid-February for receipt of the first round of expert reports now to the end of February and indications maybe that there is some further slippage in terms of identifying witness lists from 6 March until a point beyond that. Recognising the enormous pressures that everyone is under, we would urge that if there is to be a four-week or thereabouts adjournment in the start date that that is not a four weeks’ or thereabouts slippage in the timetable for disclosure.

We really must have all the available information and disclosure as soon as possible if we are to be ready for the start of June.

Secondly, we reiterate the call for a meaningful preliminary hearing towards the end of March and, in order to be meaningful, really connected to my first point, there can be no further slippage in terms of disclosure, so that by the end of March we are as fully briefed as we can be with disclosure, witness statements, and so on, so that we can assist you in identifying those important issues as to the evidence that the Inquiry is going to hear in the course of this module.

Thirdly and finally, really reflecting what I have already said this morning, that we do invite consideration or reconsideration on what meaningful participation of Core Participants is in preparation for the hearings and not just in the hearings themselves. We respectfully, my Lady, ask you to consider the points that have been made on behalf of the Northern Irish families and consider whether a change of approach in terms of engagement in a meaningful way in preparation is called for from today.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much, Ms Campbell. Obviously I will consider very carefully all the submissions you very helpfully made. Thank you.

Ms Campbell: Thank you.

Lady Hallett: Ms Mitchell, King’s Counsel.