2. Submissions by Ms Campbell

Ms Campbell: My Lady, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Covid-19 Bereaved Families, may I once again welcome the Inquiry, if only virtually in this hearing, to Northern Ireland.

This Inquiry and this module in particular is of the utmost importance to all of the bereaved families here in the north. The families, as you know, have long campaigned for an Inquiry and a Northern Ireland Inquiry, it is fair to say, in particular. But as has been recognised by Ms Dobbin this afternoon, the ongoing political stalemate, if I can call it that, in the North means that a Northern Irish specific Inquiry is no closer to reality nor is, in fact, the ongoing scrutiny that might have been expected in the aftermath of the pandemic.

So, in reality, your Inquiry represents the only opportunity for bereaved families in the North to get and to gain and to bring some understanding of their individual and collective experience during the Covid-19 pandemic here in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, it is very much welcomed and it is very much appreciated by the Northern Irish families.

It is hoped that your Inquiry, and in particular through the focus of Northern Ireland in this module, will provide much needed scrutiny of decisions and indecision, of action and inaction, of communication and miscommunications or, in some cases, a wholesale lack of communication and, importantly, of opportunities and missed opportunities that afflicted those who we lost and those who are now bereaved.

These are all issues that continue, as my Lady knows well, to cause heart break to the bereaved across our society. My Lady, expectations really of this Module and this Inquiry are therefore very high. Module 2C in particular, from a Northern Irish perspective, has an enormous task and a very important function. I can say, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, that we are very much here to assist the Inquiry in achieving its aim.

My Lady knows that a very significant amount of work has already been undertaken by the bereaved families and indeed by their representatives, in order to assist you in identifying our shared and collective experiences through key themes and through recurring issues that have been shared across the bereaved families. Therefore, in identifying lessons that really require to be learned, as a result of their experience and their bereavement, it is regrettable but it is perhaps unsurprising that there are many shared experiences and, therefore, we feel many lessons to be learned.

You will know of several of them, my Lady, having already read the detailed statement that was provided on behalf of the bereaved families, submitted by way of a Rule 9 response to Module 1. I can assure my Lady that there is indeed more to come.

If I may, given the focus is on Northern Ireland today, I will draw your attention to some of the issues now so that our families can be aware that they are, if I can put it colloquially, on your radar or list and that, if not today, then in the near future the Inquiry can give us the necessary assurance as to how and when they will be addressed.

It may be in due course we are told some of the issues are not to be addressed in Module 2C or will be addressed in Module 1 or perhaps more appropriately in Module 3, which is healthcare and Module 4 which is social care.

However, given our previously aired concerns, that there must be sufficient and meaningful focus on Northern Ireland within the wider modules and of course your assurance to the families that that will happen, if I may I will address them shortly today.

I had entitled them “discrete issues” but that might inadvertently diminish their importance.

There are four. The first is the issue of North/South co-operation. This is perhaps increasing in prominence, in our submission, because of its relative – I should stress the word ‘relative’ – absence in the scope of this module and, indeed, in the council to the Inquiry’s written submissions. We have of course listened carefully to the oral submissions this afternoon.

It is right that we should observe that the provisional scope of Module 2C does include the extent to which decisions made during the pandemic were informed by the response of the Government of the Republic of Ireland. That reference is undoubtedly an acknowledgement of the unique political and geographical situation Northern Ireland is in. On any view, our unique position called for a different approach to governance during the pandemic than in any of the other administrations. However, we respectfully contend that that reference in the provisional scope does not go far enough.

My Lady, long before the onset of the pandemic – and this is, no doubt, going to be recognised in the disclosure that we receive – but long before the pandemic hit, it was recognised politically and by health institutions that the island of Ireland is geographically a single epidemiological unit, with a cross-border public body, the Institute of Public Health being responsible for public health on the island of Ireland.

That, of course, is surely borne at the very least from commonsense. There is free movement of people across the island. People live in one jurisdiction and work in the other. Families live on either side of the border. People shop, socialise or access services in one jurisdiction or the other jurisdiction or both jurisdictions.

Neither Westminster nor the Northern Ireland Executive nor the Republic of Ireland Government controls all ports or points of entry into this jurisdiction and, as a result, there are many cross border and inter-governmental bodies and political institutions, most set up, in fact, under the Good Friday Agreement, to recognise and facilitate our unique situation.

For example the North/South ministerial council; the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association; British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. Whilst the scope of this Module recognises that there was a need to be informed about decisions of the Irish Government, we contend that this Inquiry will have to do much more to consider and to assess both the UK Central Government’s interaction and co-operation with the Government of Ireland and those cross-border and inter-governmental bodies, as well as the interaction between the Stormont Executive and their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland.

These are important political structures for us here and their existence and actions may have a bearing on a response to the pandemic but they don’t appear in the provisional of scope, they didn’t appear in the CTI note for this hearing nor, in fact, do many of those bodies appear in the annex relating to Rule 9 requests for evidence and submissions.

It is our submission that they really do require to be examined. Of course, we hear and we understand the point made by Ms Dobbin that, really, on an examination of the disclosure from one entity, one can get a very strong impression, perhaps even an accurate and full impression of the impact of another but that might not always be the case.

So it is of such importance that we would, in fact, invite the provisional scope of Module 2C to be amended to reflect that cross-border communication and governance will be considered so that, to extent that it is possible and indeed necessary, lessons need to be identified and learned. We are, of course, ready and willing to assist in that process and to communicate with your team in order to identify the appropriate cross-border institutions and governance that ought to be approached.

It may also be that a means and an effective means, in order to fully elucidate the importance of these cross-border institutions is to identify an appropriate expert in the – both the political institutions and framework of Northern Ireland vis-à-vis Westminster and vis-à-vis Dublin and also within that to address the unique health and social care framework, and that might well, we suggest, be a relatively streamlined way in which to properly reflect the unique situation in which we operate in the North.

My Lady, I will touch briefly on the issue of austerity as point 2 and my learned friend has again addressed this, this afternoon, and we are grateful for her submissions. Whilst of course this is not an Inquiry into the pre-existing state of health services or public services, be it healthcare or social work, nor could it be, we contend that, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the Inquiry must acknowledge, again either by way of expert evidence or otherwise, the really perilous state of public services in Northern Ireland before the onset of the pandemic.

Many of our families are in no doubt that their loved ones were ultimately victims of a health and social care system in a state of near collapse and the fact that it has been in a state of near collapse is widely recognised both in literature and also in expert evidence given to other court cases in Northern Ireland.

So it is our submission that the impact of that austerity that we have addressed in our written submissions, combined with the long periods of the absence of a functioning Executive left the prevailing healthcare system and social care system in a dire state before the pandemic and decisions made – and this is important in terms of bringing it within of course this scope – that those pre-existing pressures were real and that decisions made in the context of those have got to be examined.

Therefore, in order to properly consider the impact of the pandemic in health and social care in Northern Ireland we must first understand the prior state of the healthcare system.

My Lady, point 3 is communication and we have addressed it briefly at paragraph 16 of our written submissions. In that paragraph, we set out concerns about communication during the pandemic and give the example of communications in relation to care home guidance.

My Lady, you will know, of course, that equivalent concerns exist on behalf of those who were hospitalised and, in particular, around the nature and extent of medication that was dispensed and around the decisions made in relation to resuscitation.

So too do those concerns exist on behalf of the very many people on Northern Ireland who were cared for within their own home environment by what we colloquially know as “home help”.

The experiences of our families is that the messages from Stormont, trickling through each of the social care trusts were mixed, confused and inconsistently applied. While that may be an issue more appropriate for Module 3 or Module 4, we invite your team to liaise with us to identify when and how the evidence touching on this aspect of communication will be addressed and so that the experiences and concerns of the bereaved will be heard and the question that our families have as to when this will be addressed will be answered.

My Lady, point 4 was that of social, cultural and religious customs. I can say at the outset that Ms Dobbin’s indication today, that within the scope of Module 2C consideration on the restriction over wakes and funerals will be very welcome news to the bereaved families. You will, my Lady, on your tour of the UK encounter a great many cultural differences on behalf of different groups and different regions and that’s, of course, one of the joys of this nation. But in Northern Ireland the social culture and religious importance of holding wakes and community funerals really cannot be overstated.

Community grieving is integral to our society and, as a result of that, the restrictions on gatherings and mournings collectively, as well as the hands-off or rather hazardous way that deceased loved ones were treated on their deaths caused immense pain and distress at the time and continues to cause heartache to those who lost loved ones. It is just one of the ways in which the pandemic impacted differently in this jurisdiction but a very important one.

So thank you to you, my Lady, and to Ms Dobbin for indicating that that will be given consideration in Module 2C. As I say, that reassurance will be very welcome news to the families.

My Lady, turning, if I may, to the agenda. We recognise the start date had to be put back slightly and so we will start this module some 13 months hence. We acknowledge both the reason and the need for some delay. However, we do really question whether the proposed 14 days or three weeks, minus a Bank Holiday is sufficient.

In our respectful submission, it is not, if I may so, premature to allocate a greater degree of time at this stage. Given the unique issues that have to be addressed, it is appropriate and, we would submit, ought to be recognised that 14 days is very likely to be inadequate, in order to address all the issues that need to be addressed and that greater time needs to be allocated in order to allow for proper scrutiny.

One has to think of not only the unique geographical situation, the political dysfunction and instability before – some might say during and since – the input from Westminster and Dublin, the unique health and social care framework, all of those call for a greater amount of time to be allocated. In fact, at a conservative estimate, we would respectfully submit that a timetable, in fact, twice as long would easily be filled with important evidence to be scrutinised.

Baroness Hallett: I’m sorry to interrupt you, as you know I like to give the stenographer a break because he or she has to lot to put up with. I don’t mean that in any pejorative sense as far as your submissions are concerned. Any idea – I don’t want to rush you, I’m happy to take the break now, if that’s convenient, or if you would rather complete your submissions but it depends on how long they are going to be.

Ms Campbell: I would have thought perhaps another 10 minutes.

Baroness Hallett: In which case, if you don’t mind, we will take the break now.

Ms Campbell: Yes, of course.

Baroness Hallett: Very well, 15 minutes please, so that means I will be back at 3.15 pm.

(3.00 pm)

(A short break)

(3.15 pm)

Baroness Hallett: Ms Campbell, sorry about interrupting you and about the confusion over timing, I have got to sort out my watch.

Ms Campbell: Not at all, my Lady.

I was moving on to the topic of Rule 9s and Rule 9 requests. May I start with an acknowledgement from the outset, and it is an important one. There is a huge task being undertaken by your team to seek and to obtain all necessary disclosure and information from all necessary and relevant individuals, and so we don’t underestimate for a moment the enormity of the task, nor do we underestimate the diligence that is being applied to it by your team.

True to her word, Ms Dobbin has reached out to us to explain the work that is ongoing and the timetable that surrounds it and we are grateful for that indication and also the reassurance.

However, my Lady, we are in a position to assist with that process and it is our respectful submission that we ought to be given a greater opportunity in that regard. It will have been apparent both from our written submissions to this module but also from submissions made in other modules that, if given an opportunity, if given sight, for example, of a list of recipients of Rule 9 requests, we are in a position to identify absentees, we are in a position to identify other relevant individuals and agencies who ought to have been approached and it is fair to acknowledge that, once we have done so, there has been action on behalf of your teams across the various modules.

Just by way of example, we raised in our written submissions an approach to the RQIA and we are grateful to Ms Dobbin this afternoon for an update on that. But there is also the Institute for Public Health in Ireland, we have identified Northern Irish Ministers for Health, UK ministers, the Secretaries of State and Republic of Ireland equivalents just being some of those.

We also have identified, and these are submissions echoed, in fact, on behalf of Disability Action and, of course, the TUC, the various regional health and social care trusts and the directors and management in those trusts.

My Lady will be aware that Ms Ferguson, whom we represent, has provided a very lengthy and detailed list of names of individuals who may be approached. We are also in a position not only to identify absentees but to identify sources and additional sources of material that must be gathered. Whilst we, of course, acknowledge that it is an iterative process being undertaken by your team, an iterative process in which we only have that limited, if you like, outsider participation, is not as reassuring as might have been intended.

My Lady, the families and individual members of our group have an enormous repository of experience and information and of knowledge and we urge the Inquiry to adopt therefore a greater degree of openness in relation to the gathering of information under Rule 9 requests and to permit us a greater degree of participation in this process.

That can be achieved by sharing the detail of the Rule 9 requests, which is a submission that we have made previously, by sharing the full list of recipients and by receiving submissions from us, not just in relation to a list of names or organisations or agencies, but in relation to the substance of what must be asked and from whom. We have, in addition, in our written submissions, raised the additional concern of what might be termed a top heavy approach to approaching individuals, ministers and agencies. So, therefore, seeking the accounts of senior ministers or a line adopted from the council to the Inquiry submissions, a corporate statement. Of course, that is necessary, we don’t suggest for a moment that it is in any way window dressing but we are keen to ensure that, if there are dissenting voices, those voices are heard and given an opportunity to be heard.

My Lady will be in no doubt that there is value in the accounts and opinions of others further down the chain, below the top echelons and how does this Inquiry ensure that those accounts are obtained is a question that we ask. At paragraph 38 of our written submissions you will have seen that we propose various means by which the Inquiry might ensure that dissenting voices are heard, including a well publicised invitation to individuals within relevant entities to come forward, if they feel able to, to provide information, if they feel able to, or by casting the net wider in relation to Rule 9 requests and we urge you and your team to consider those suggestions with care and in the round.

It is of the utmost importance to the bereaved families, as I am sure of course it is to you, my Lady, that the full picture is presented and represented in the evidence and we can’t rely on either the accounts given only by those at the top or the willingness of whistleblowers to come forward. Of course, we acknowledge that a greater degree of insight will be available to us when wider disclosure becomes available, but we raise it as an important issue that shouldn’t be overlooked at this stage.

My Lady, turning to disclosure. Really under this heading we rely to a very significant extent on our written submissions. Again, we understand the volume of work that is being undertaken. But we do repeat previously voiced concerns about the balance that must be struck between redacting personal or sensitive information and timely disclosure. Many of us will have had experience of a redaction being applied on the basis of something that appeared inconsequential, only for it to have become important in the fullness of time. Our concern would be that a blanket redaction, for example, of names on an email chain, even of junior officials, might belie patterns of communication that on proper scrutiny become important.

That is not just because of the presence of names included on the list but also because of notable absences of names, in terms of communication that ought to have taken place.

So, therefore, we again urge the Inquiry against the use of blanket redactions, notwithstanding its attractiveness in order to facilitate disclosure for expediency purposes, and we are willing to work with your team to find the best way through that.

We have raised in our written submission the platform for disclosure and I can simply say that increased familiarity is not generating increased fondness for the platform or for its functionality.

We welcome the indication today that work is ongoing to provide us with coding or with tags, as we call them, to enable or to increase its functionality. That, in fact, hasn’t been our experience so far and certainly I was under the impression that we had reached the end of the road in those discussions but, in fact, if we are wrong about that and if it is going to be possible to assist us with search terms, then we welcome that as news today.

My Lady, the issue of expert witnesses I have touched on previously. It is worthy, I think, of note that of the two expert reports disclosed so far in module 1, one does not even mention Northern Ireland in terms at all and the other, that was more recently disclosed on health inequalities, on an initial read doesn’t assist at all with the framework of our political or healthcare system and, in fact – and I don’t wish to criticise, it is only on an initial read – but appears to address Northern Ireland only in relatively light terms.

Therefore, we maintain our position that this Inquiry would be assisted by an expert to give evidence firstly on devolved government in Northern Ireland and the complexities of the political health and social care system and their relationships between Belfast, Westminster and Dublin.

My Lady, we, of course, can understand why the approach might be to wait and see. We have a number of experts still to report but, in our submission, it would be appropriate to seek to identify those experts, potential experts, at this stage and we are willing to work with your team in order to assist with that process because, in our submission, an expert, or perhaps two experts if required, would be of particular importance to this Inquiry in identifying lessons learned for future pandemics in this jurisdiction and on this island and, in fact, to a significant degree would likely streamline the evidence that is to be heard.

My Lady, as to the witness hearing schedule, we have nothing to add. We welcome the news that there will be a further preliminary hearing.

As to the issue of parliamentary privilege, we have made earlier submissions on that in earlier modules and it seems to us that it is a bridge to be crossed as and when we come to it.

I will address briefly the issue of Rule 10 and, as you have heard undoubtedly in previous preliminary hearings, the opportunity for counsel on behalf of Core Participants to question key witnesses on central issues would not be to detract from focus but hopefully to assist in focus on issues that are of significant importance to the Core Participants.

We will, of course, work very closely with your teams in working through witness bundles when they are provided, in identifying issues, in identifying questions, both formally in written submissions and informally in discussions, and we have no doubt that the assurances given today that the Core Participants’ voices will be heard as part of that process are given in very good faith. But we invite you, my Lady, to leave open the opportunity at this stage, the possibility and, in fact, the probability that there should be questions on behalf of the bereaved families of key and important witnesses to them.

We acknowledge that the timetable is tight but, once again, the fact that one has set what we would respectfully submit is too short a timetable ought not to be used as a reason to indicate that there is insufficient time for counsel on behalf of Core Participants to ask questions on behalf of those they represent. But that is a matter that we will continue to work with your teams in relation to.

My Lady, finally, the listening exercise. Northern Ireland Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice and their legal representatives are ready and willing to assist in this process to the greatest extent that we can. It is understood as an exercise to be an enhancement of the opportunity for individual participation in the Inquiry, rather than an alternative to it, of course. I can assure my Lady and I know, you having met some of the bereaved families, that we have much to say in this jurisdiction and individuals are ready and willing and keen to share their own experiences and the experiences of those they have lost, no matter how difficult it is for them to do so.

So, as and when the opportunity arises, it will be taken up by many of those whom we represent and I make clear that we are, of course, ready to welcome you back as part of that process. It was observed by Ms Dobbin that you, in fact, have participated and will continue to do so.

The fact that many of our members have had the opportunity to share their experiences with you has already been the source of deep gratitude and is often discussed by them as something that is important and so, should the opportunity arise, then, as I say, we would welcome it again. Meanwhile, we will continue to work your team in order to facilitate that level of communication with the listening exercise.

Thank you.

Baroness Hallett: Thank you very much, Ms Campbell. Particularly thank you for the very positive approach in relation to the listening exercise. I said before and I think you have heard me say it, that my visit to Belfast I found one of the most moving occasions and I shall certainly return, not only just for this module but on other occasions, if I possibly can. So thank you very much indeed.

Ms Campbell: Thank you.

Baroness Hallett: Mr Friedman.