1. Introductory Remarks by the Chair

Lady Hallett: Good morning, everyone.

This is the third preliminary hearing for Module 2 of the Covid-19 UK Inquiry, focusing on core decision-making. It is taking place in Dorland House, Paddington. Dorland House will be the venue for the London-based hearings at which evidence is heard and which we will start next week with Module 1, that will be focusing on resilience and preparedness. Other hearings will take place in the devolved nations.

The Inquiry team has spent a great deal of time and resources finding and equipping a suitable venue in London and is currently exploring options for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I hope that Dorland House will be adequate for the vast majority of those attending hearings in London. It isn’t perfect but we couldn’t find a venue that was perfect, available for the time that we shall need it, and that would not cost the taxpayer an exorbitant sum of money.

We have done everything we reasonably can to make the hearing centre as accessible as possible and to allow a reasonable number of people to attend in person.

For those who are unable to attend in person but wish to follow our proceedings, you’ll be able to do so online. More work will be done on Dorland House this summer and if there are any further reasonable adjustments that need to be made, we should be happy to consider them.

In preparing for the evidence, for the hearing of evidence in Module 2 due to take place this autumn, the Inquiry team has been working extraordinarily hard gathering all relevant and potentially relevant material.

As has been widely reported in the media, an issue has arisen between the Inquiry and the Cabinet Office as to who decides what is relevant or potentially relevant.

Mr Keith: My Lady, I’m extremely sorry to rise to my feet. There may be a technical problem with the transmission of your opening remarks.

Hearings Manager: No, we’re fine.

Mr Keith: Ah, no, it’s been resolved. There we are, I’m very sorry for interrupting you.

Lady Hallett: Not at all, thank you.

I’ll begin again.

As has been widely reported in the media, an issue has arisen between the Inquiry and the Cabinet Office as to who decides what is relevant or potentially relevant.

I issued a notice under section 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005 making it clear that, in my view, it is for the Inquiry Chair to decide what is relevant or potentially relevant.

The Cabinet Office disagrees, claiming they are not obliged to disclose what they consider to be unambiguously irrelevant material. They invited me to withdraw the section 21 notice. I declined, and they are now challenging my decision to withdraw the notice – or to decline to withdraw the notice in the High Court by way of judicial review.

With litigation pending and as the decision-maker I can make no further comment.

Mr Hugo Keith King’s Counsel, Counsel to the Inquiry, will now outline the steps that have been taken so far, and the issues that arise for my consideration today. I shall also hear from those of the core participants who wish to make oral submissions. I am, as ever, very grateful to all those who have made written submissions. I have read them carefully, and I will bear them very much in mind.

Given the amount of work we must get through today, I invite the core participants who do make oral submissions to focus on the most important aspects of their submissions and not to dwell on matters that can be dealt with in writing and do not need to be rehearsed orally.

So with those words, I now ask Mr Keith to tell me what is happening today.