4. Submissions on Behalf of Scottish Covid Bereaved by Ms Mitchell KC

Lady Hallett: I can see you. Can you see us, Ms Mitchell?

Ms Mitchell: I can – good morning, my Lady – thank you very much.

My Lady, I’ve listened with care to what’s been said beforehand and I think the Scottish Covid Bereaved aren’t known for their lengthy submissions but I shall endeavour to make this perhaps one of our shortest yet, given the number of people that are speaking today, and also given the fact that, in relation to this particular module, we really are at the foothills of our enquiries, given that we will not be hearing until next August.

Perhaps, if I may move to my first issue, that is the timing of the hearings. We’re grateful to Counsel to the Inquiry for providing a detailed note and update this morning. We note that the proposed date for this module is going to be autumn next year, and of course we would have hoped that would have been sooner, but given what we know already about the preparation and presentation of the Inquiry, we appreciate that there is an enormous amount of information that has to be in-gathered, assessed, disclosed, et cetera, and of course witnesses obtained.

The Scottish Covid Bereaved don’t want to sacrifice thoroughness for speed, and we hope that the proposed timing reflects the detail in which this module will be dealt with.

Given that’s the case, a ten-week period does seem a very ambitious timescale and, given that disclosure is in its early stages, it may be that in the course of time greater time is needed. We would only ask at this stage that, whilst it’s good to plan, the hearing timing of ten weeks ought not to dictate the number of witnesses to be called within it, and rather that period of time should be kept under review and expanded if and when necessary.

So, my Lady, we would simply urge that a degree of flexibility be built into the proposed timescale for these hearings in order that, perhaps closer to the time, a further assessment can be given as to whether or not that period of ten weeks is in fact realistic.

Number two, disclosure. We have now started to receive disclosure, as of last week, in relation to this module, and we are disappointed this morning to understand that the reason that there is perhaps so little disclosure to date is because of the delays in respect of the Rule 9s.

We hope that this hearing serves as an opportunity for the Inquiry to stress the importance of observing the time limits when set. We, of course, are kept to strict time limits, and we do understand that sometimes we need to understand the size and scale of the requests being asked for. However, as this Inquiry has said repeatedly, it is vitally important that we are able to proceed with speed in respect of these hearings in order that we do not find ourselves in perhaps another pandemic before we would be ready to find out what we need to learn from the last pandemic. Therefore, it’s absolutely vital that as much emphasis is put by those parties that have been asked to provide information to provide it as soon as possible, because it’s not only in the interests of the Inquiry but it’s in the interests of everyone in the UK that they try and observe these time limits.

Three, the issue of the retention of evidence. The Scottish Covid Bereaved note that it’s been identified in relation to the retention of emails within NHS Wales that Microsoft 365 email system may have had some kind of issue with the retention of emails.

We are of course concerned to hear that is the case, albeit that it would not affect, it would appear, interests directly in Scotland. We are of course seized of the view that it is of the utmost importance to have the best and primary evidence given to this Inquiry, and as a result we would urge all other key governmental and NHS organisations to be clear that they are able to retain all primary evidence that is going to be available, because that is how best we will be able to recreate what happened during the pandemic, and we hope that this issue having been raised today by Counsel to the Inquiry will allow other holders of information perhaps to reflect upon that situation and to ensure that that doesn’t happen elsewhere.

Four, it’s noted that the Inquiry has identified four areas which it proposes to examine in more detail to assess the impact of the pandemic on those requiring healthcare for reasons other than Covid-19.

The Scottish Covid Bereaved members of course have family members that were impacted by other matters than the pandemic per se, and of course we appreciate the Inquiry cannot examine every distinct non-Covid condition. However, we are heartened to hear this morning that the request from the Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry that the issues of maternity and antenatal care may be expanded to include those issues in relation to women who suffered miscarriage, and we would urge the Inquiry to consider that in some detail, including the care and the services provided to women at that time and how that was impacted by the pandemic.

We look forward to hearing more about this in future hearings.

Five, it’s noted that the Inquiry has instructed a number of experts for Module 3, as we would have come to expect. We understand that the expert witnesses in relation to intensive care and critical care are both based in England. No issue, perhaps – although it’s taken elsewhere, no issue is taken on behalf of the Scottish Covid Bereaved with independence or expertise of these witnesses, but we do strike a note of caution.

There may be differences between the healthcare systems and how matters are dealt with between Scotland and England, of course Scotland having its own healthcare system. We note that Counsel to the Inquiry has stated that the reports will address all four nations, but we flag up at this stage that the Inquiry may benefit from the expertise of those in Scotland. If it may be that Dr Suntharalingam and Dr Summers are not in a position to comment on certain matters as they arose in NHS Scotland, we would ask that the Inquiry consider instructing a report from suitably qualified people with experience of practice in Scotland to produce reports to assist the Inquiry.

This observation of course applies to all the expert reports. It’s not being suggested that we simply have to have a Scottish report in respect of every matter, but we would respectfully submit it might be helpful to ask the experts whether or not they consider that giving the same information or similar information into Scotland – sorry, similar information about Scotland is appropriate or whether or not they feel they would benefit from perhaps speaking to a Scottish colleague or having a Scottish expert involved, and we would respectfully submit, given NHS Scotland is a separate entity, that that is considered by this Inquiry.

Unless there’s anything further, my Lady, those are the submissions at this stage on behalf of the Scottish Covid Bereaved.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed, Ms Mitchell. As ever, directly on point and you raise some interesting matters that I obviously will consider.

In relation to disclosure, can I just say this to supplement what Ms Carey said earlier: I am acutely conscious of the burdens that this Inquiry has placed on some material providers and of course the demands placed on them by what Ms Carey called the “day job”. Having said that, I am also acutely conscious of the duty that I have to the public of the United Kingdom, and therefore I have to say I will use all the powers at my disposal, where necessary, to ensure adherence to the timetable that I have set, and I would therefore issue the reminder that Ms Mitchell asked me to do.

Thank you very much.

Ms Mitchell: I’m obliged, my Lady.

Lady Hallett: Right.

Now I think it’s Ms Gowman, and I think you’ve moved so I can see you.