2. Submissions on Behalf of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK by Ms Stone

Ms Stone: Thank you, my Lady, and good morning.

My Lady, as you know, I’m part of the team of counsel and solicitors representing the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, who number approximately 7,000 members from across the UK.

My Lady, the group of families I represent look forward to assisting the Inquiry in this important module, and as Mr Wald has mentioned, we’ve made joint submissions in writing with Northern Ireland Covid Bereaved Families for Justice, and in preparing to address you I’ve liaised with Ms McDermott in an effort to avoid duplication.

With that in mind, my Lady, may I address you briefly on five themes, please. They are: process, firstly, including sequencing of modules, to which Mr Wald has already alluded, transparency and confidentiality and practical arrangements for the hearings; secondly, scope; thirdly, evidence gathering; fourthly, Every Story Matters; and fifthly, family evidence.

My Lady, taking those in turn, on process and sequencing of modules, I’ve listened carefully to what’s been said this morning, and thank you to your team for addressing this issue which has been raised in our written submissions, but I do wish to address you further, if I may, to raise our clients’ concerns in respect of this.

It’s something which has caused acute concern amongst them. They are troubled by the prospect of a significant lapse of time before the impact of the pandemic on those crucial areas of health and social care is examined by your Inquiry.

Knowing what we do about the severe challenges faced by the NHS across the UK, the families are gravely concerned, my Lady, that on the current timetable a further two winters will pass, with all of the risks that that entails, before you’re able to identify lessons and formulate recommendations which we would submit are clearly needed to safeguard the health of our communities.

Similar concerns, my Lady, are shared by those whom I represent about the length of time which is currently expected to elapse before the impact of the pandemic on the care sector is examined.

So, my Lady, without diminishing the importance of this module, and in appreciation of the scale of the Inquiry’s task in the areas of both health and care sector, we would submit that the logical approach, both evidentially and in terms of prioritisation, would be to move from the Module 2 topics of political and administrative decision-making into those core areas of health and social care.

My Lady, I conclude by saying we are mindful of what Mr Wald has told us this morning, but we do invite you to give further consideration as to whether the hearings in this module should in fact take place before those in Module 3, and also to consider the possibility of bringing forward the public hearings on the care sector in Module 6.

My Lady, in terms of the second submission on process, that relates to the principle of transparency and openness.

My Lady, those whom I represent welcome the decision to hold this and other preliminary hearings, to hear submissions in public and to publish transcripts and written submission on your Inquiry website. However, there are, of necessity, many other issues which are dealt with outside those hearings and decisions which are communicated to core participants in writing, and at present, my Lady, many of these issues are communicated on a confidential basis, meaning that the public are not aware of the processes and decision-making of the Inquiry in these respects, and that any concerns which we or others may have about those issues cannot be aired publicly.

My Lady, you will have in mind the need for transparency and inclusiveness in this Inquiry, both as a matter of principle and in order to build public confidence in it, and to that extent – or to that end, I should say, we submit that the default position should be that all communications with core participants and decision-making should be opened, unless confidentiality is absolutely necessary, and we would invite your team to adopt that approach in this module and throughout the Inquiry.

My Lady, the third subtopic in respect of process is a practical matter. May I address you on a matter which relates to the ability of those whom we represent to participate in this Inquiry by attending the public hearings?

My Lady, in short, our experience is that the current position whereby only two seats may be reserved for our members is having the effect of actively discouraging them from attending the hearings, and they find themselves understandably unable to make the necessary arrangements for attendance, long journeys in many cases, including paying for train tickets, without knowing whether they will be able to access the hearing room.

My Lady, this is something that we have corresponded with your team on a number of occasions, and we raise this issue now to invite a review of the current system to reflect the wide client group that we represent.

Just finally on this point, my Lady, we’d also invite you to give further consideration to the provision of a room connected with this one where a greater number of families could gather together to watch and listen to the hearings. That, in my submission, would make a real difference to many family members who would be able to benefit from that support of being with others, rather than being on their own while listening to very difficult and at times upsetting evidence.

Lady Hallett: Sorry, Ms Stone, just so I follow that submission, there is a room down the end where people can follow; what exactly is the submission that you’re making, so I understand?

Ms Stone: It would be for further resourcing along those lines, my Lady, to enable a greater number of families to share in that experience, and also potentially for consideration of those sorts of venues outside of London, to enable those of our families who are spread across the UK to have a similar experience of gathering together to watch and listen to your hearings.

Lady Hallett: I’m not quite following, sorry. So is it that you want more – so we do have another room that is linked to the hearing room.

Ms Stone: Yes.

Lady Hallett: Is it that you want more space than that? Because I’m afraid that may just be a simple physical limitation.

Ms Stone: Yes.

Lady Hallett: So could you address that point, please, as to what exactly you’re asking me to consider, because I’m perfectly prepared obvious to consider your submissions carefully, and also what you’re asking me to consider for when we go round the country? I’m afraid I’m not following.

Ms Stone: My Lady, thank you. We do appreciate that there is a room here. We appreciate the constraints of space. More room would be beneficial, if I can put it in that way, not necessarily in this physical building. We’d ask to you consider the provision of space outside of this building but also to consider satellite venues, if I can put it like that, across the UK, across the country, to enable family members to gather regionally and observe the hearings on that collective basis, which, as I say, has a real benefit in terms of support.

Lady Hallett: I follow. Thank you.

Ms Stone: Thank you.

My Lady, could I turn to scope, then, please.

We respectfully agree with the broad approach to scope and with the indication that this will be kept under review. I have just a few specific points, if I may, to make.

Firstly, my Lady, while it’s right to recognise the UK’s achievements in the areas under consideration in Module 4, we welcome the assurance this morning that the Inquiry team’s intention is to cast a critical eye over the issues in Module 4, and that will necessarily involve the same degree of rigorous scrutiny as in other modules, and we know that there can and will be no presumptions in respect of your findings or lessons for the future.

Secondly, my Lady, on international co-operation and collaboration, this is something that we have raised in our written submission, as you will have seen, but in our submission an investigation into vaccines and therapeutics would be incomplete without consideration of the UK’s role in international co-operation and collaboration and in ensuring global vaccine equity.

As was reinforced by the evidence that you heard in Module 1, a global crisis such as Covid or the next pandemic calls for a collaborative international approach, including in the development and dissemination of vaccines and therapeutics. This is unquestionably the right thing to do, but it is also necessary if we’re to minimise the risks posed by variants and prepare for the next pandemic. So we would submit that this is a crucial area for your consideration in Module 4.

We welcome, my Lady, the inclusion of thematic issues relating to unequal vaccine uptake and whether enough was done to ensure fair and adequate access to vaccines and therapeutics, including for marginalised groups and communities. We also welcome the indication this morning that there will be expert evidence on inequalities and, as we have set out in writing, we submit that that will involve specific expert evidence on structural racism and discrimination to be obtained and called, building on the evidence which has been obtained for Module 2.

Finally, I’m grateful, my Lady, for the indication this morning about the UK-wide focus of this module. As I mentioned at the outset, our group includes families from across the UK, and as has been recognised this is a matter of key importance for them and for the group as a whole.

Topic 3, my Lady, is evidence gathering. As has been alluded to this morning, we have made submissions to you in relation to the evidence gathering process, and in particular disclosure of Rule 9 requests and directions for position statements.

We are mindful, my Lady, of your previous rulings on these points, but we would invite you to reflect further on the processes, having regard to what we submit appear to have been real challenges which the disclosure process has posed in Modules 1 and 2. We note particularly that the apparent late production of materials to the Inquiry appears to have led to very late disclosure of relevant material to core participants.

With that background in mind, we would submit that the use of position statements would enable your team to focus their investigation at an earlier stage by requiring material providers to assist them in narrowing the issues. That would lessen the burden on the Inquiry team and make it easier for this Inquiry to scrutinise the key issues, and in our respectful submission, it would be particularly helpful given the scale of your task in this Inquiry.

Topic 4, my Lady, is Every Story Matters, and you are aware of the strength of feeling among those I represent in relation to the listening exercise. It’s an issue of considerable importance to them, as it will be to many others who wish their diverse voices to be heard and their experiences to inform and assist your Inquiry.

As we’ve outlined in the written submission, we continue to seek further information about the process for the benefit of those whom we represent, and in particular who will be tasked with undertaking the evidence gathering, analysis and compilation of reports, what expertise and experience will be required to work with vulnerable people, including the bereaved, and how the process will be overseen and assured.

I know, my Lady, you will have in mind the submissions we’ve previously made in relation to the importance of transparency in connection with this exercise, and we thank Mr Wald for the indication this morning that further information will be provided shortly.

Finally, my Lady, I turn to the evidence of the bereaved. I won’t repeat our previous submissions, save to emphasise the value that we consider will be added to your Inquiry by the provision of direct evidence from those impacted by the pandemic, including our bereaved family members.

In respect of this module, we welcome your team’s recognition that family members and other individuals may well have relevant evidence to give on issues that have affected them. We respectfully agree with this approach, which is one we have advocated for in other modules. We will seek to assist your Inquiry, as we have in Modules 1 and 2, and will in Module 3, by providing a proportionate list of witnesses who can reflect the diverse range of experiences of our client group. We urge you in Module 4 to hear directly from those witnesses and submit that your Inquiry’s understanding of the issues and the need for future recommendations will be enriched by their oral evidence.

My Lady, unless there’s anything I can assist you with, those are my submissions.

Lady Hallett: No, thank you very much indeed, Ms Stone, very helpful. I will obviously, as ever, consider all the submissions very carefully. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think, Ms McDermott, we will break now and come back after 15 minutes. Well, slightly longer than 15 minutes. I’ll be back at five to.

(11.38 am)

(A short break)

(11.55 am)

Lady Hallett: Yes, Ms McDermott.