4. Submissions by Ms Mitchell, KC

Ms Mitchell: Is my Lady able to see me?

Lady Hallett: I am.

Ms Mitchell: Grand.

We’re grateful to senior counsel to the Inquiry for providing a detailed note which relates to a number of procedural issues that we were keen to have clarified and, as such, the remaining submissions today will be relatively short.

First of all, if I may deal with the postponement of the hearing date. The Scottish Covid Bereaved are of course very keen to make progress in hearing evidence. However, not at the expense of having full disclosure which will allow meaningful participation in the process. Therefore, given the relatively short period of time which is envisaged to put back the hearing, there is no objection to this course.

If I may move on then to briefly discussing the Rule 9, which has been submitted on behalf of the Scottish Covid Bereaved. On 3 January 2023, the Scottish Covid Bereaved received a Rule 9 request from the Inquiry. This raises a number of important questions in relation to pandemic preparedness, the response to which we hope the Inquiry will find helpful.

There will, of course, be further and more detailed questions to be raised as the disclosure continues. We confirm that if there are organisations or individuals who do not appear in Annex A but in relation to whom there is reason to believe that the issuing of a Rule 9 request would be beneficial to Module 1, then we shall advise the Inquiry immediately.

Moving on to the issue of disclosure, having heard from senior counsel to the Inquiry this morning, we do not underestimate the amount of work it is taking to obtain and process and disclose the relevant documents to this Inquiry.

We note that in senior counsel’s written note, at paragraph 21, the Inquiry’s ideal scenario is that materials be disclosed in an organised and collated way but, in reality, a balance has been struck to ensure documents are being disclosed as soon as possible. For our part, there is considerable additional work being done to try and collate relevant documents from disclosure but this is a time-consuming process. We imagine that other Core Participants are having the same issue.

For our part, we consider the balance is best struck by the Inquiry, where possible, delivering disclosure in organised and collated tranches, even if this means taking longer. Having individual documents at an earlier stage without proper context means it is likely that those documents need to be revisited to provide context in due course when further disclosure is made. Having this work done at source means it’s likely that Core Participants will have less work to do and more likely to be prepared in time for the forthcoming hearings. We would ask that consideration is given to try to do this, whilst acknowledging the huge amount of work that the Inquiry team are already doing to try and process disclosure as soon as possible.

Moving on to the issue of Parliamentary privilege, it is important to the Scottish Covid Bereaved that Parliamentary privilege does not impinge upon the work of the Inquiry and that the Inquiry is not inhibited in fully exploring the circumstances in which decisions were taken and actions were carried out by politicians and others in relation to pandemic preparedness.

We note the process by which counsel to the Inquiry will address the issue of Parliamentary privilege and, as he’s previously noted, we consider this to be a sensible course which will allow issues covered by Parliamentary privilege to be addressed in statements which do not have the same restrictions as the doctrine of privilege.

In addition, we are comforted by senior counsel’s assurance that if a problem arises in relation to eliciting evidence, this matter will be revisited and, if in due course there are any such difficulties, we would wish an opportunity to make submissions on that.

Examining witnesses. We are grateful to counsel to the Inquiry for an indication of how he proposes to provide Core Participants with, in effect, witness packs with proposed evidence. We consider that this will be a helpful method for ensuring that the issues and accompanying submissions of the Scottish Covid Bereaved can be flagged up, and it will minimise duplication of work.

As has already been alluded to by senior counsel to the Inquiry, we would ask that after submissions have been made by Core Participants, counsel to the Inquiry responds confirming whether they consider that such an issue will be raised or not and, if not, we can, as he suggests, bend his ear as to why we consider such lines of questioning are necessary. This informal method has the benefit of allowing a degree of flexibility which may obviate the need for a formal process and we would ask that the Chair give consideration to this.

The hearing dates and CP status. When the Inquiry provides dates for hearings and CP status, we’re requested not to disclose these until they are made public. In relation to the dates for hearings, this is proving difficult on a practical basis for those who wish to make arrangements to travel or be free to watch online or even tell family members what is happening. In relation to the grant of the CP status, the inability to confirm this leads to similar problems. We do not understand the need for such a restriction.

If dates are provisional until announced, this can have been made clear and the CP status of any person or group once granted or refused does not seem to be a matter which requires any secrecy. Can the Inquiry give consideration into moving such restriction? From experience, the failure in other inquiries to provide information such as dates, et cetera, can lead to a reduced confidence in the process by families.

Turning now to co-operation with the Scottish Inquiry, the Scottish Covid Bereaved, I suppose, are in a unique situation given the fact that we also have an inquiry going on in Scotland. The Scottish Covid Bereaved group is keen to understand what, if any, update there is on the working relationship between the two inquiries, including such issues as: whether agreement has been reached that the inquiries will not sit at the same time; whether disclosure will be an entirely separate process or whether or not there will be any collaboration in relation to document and gathering; whether the Listening Exercise or Every Story Counts will be two entirely separate entities, in practical terms meaning that the Scottish Covid Bereaved would tell their story twice.

Since the last hearing at the preliminary hearing, the Scottish Covid Bereaved understands that Lord Brailsford and the Chair have met to discuss their working relationship and the group would be grateful for any updates that are available.

Memorialisation. We note the form of the memorial as a 15-panel tapestry with each panel being made in collaboration with an artist and particular community. The Scottish Covid Bereaved would be happy to input into such a project. We note that, as requested, the memorial will be movable so that it can be shown in Scotland and that consideration is being given to it also being able to be viewed online.

Further, we note that the video content to reflect the hardship and loss the pandemic caused is being made for the opening of Module 1. The Scottish Covid Bereaved welcome the opportunity to be involved in this process.

My Lady, unless there’s anything further, those are the submissions for the Scottish Covid Bereaved.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much, Ms Mitchell – as helpful as ever – and I undertake obviously to consider them all very carefully.

One thing I can say today in relation to the Scottish Inquiry, I can confirm that we have an excellent working relationship with the Scottish Inquiry team. I’m meeting Lord Brailsford again next week in person and we hope that we’ll shortly be able to publish the memorandum of understanding, which I hope will answer some of the questions that you’ve have raised, but obviously we’ll try to make sure that the people of Scotland know which inquiry is doing what and also that people who receive requests for documentation and the like don’t have too great a burden placed upon them.

So thank you very much for what you said and I will consider everything, as I have said. Thank you.

Ms Mitchell: I’m obliged, my Lady.

Lady Hallett: Now, we have left Mr Lloyd Williams and Ms Gallagher and I know the stenographer has been working hard.

Could I ask Mr Williams, if you’re there, roughly how long you think you will be, and Ms Gallagher after that the same question, to decide whether we continue now or whether we break for lunch. Mr Williams, can you give me any idea? Don’t worry; I’m not committing you to anything – just a vague idea.

Mr Williams: I can give you an estimate of 20 minutes, my Lady.

Lady Hallett: In which case. I don’t need to ask Ms Gallagher because I think it is better that we break now, you won’t feel under any constraints of time, and we will come back please at 2.00. Thank you, Mr Williams.

Mr Williams: My Lady.

(12.57 pm)

(Luncheon Adjournment)

(2.00 pm)

Lady Hallett: Mr Williams, please.