2. Ms Anne Longfield

MS ANNE LONGFIELD (affirmed).

Questions From Counsel to the Inquiry

Mr Keating: Good morning.

Ms Anne Longfield: Morning.

Counsel Inquiry: Could you give the Inquiry your full name, please?

Ms Anne Longfield: Anne Elizabeth Longfield.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Longfield, thank you so much firstly for your report, your evidence, and attending to assist the Inquiry today.

A few matters by way of introduction, could I invite you to keep your voice up, as you are. Between the two of us we’ll have to pace our conversation, as we have a stenographer to our left, who is doing a wonderful job in recording it. And lastly, if you could ask, if any of my questions are unclear, for me to rephrase them if that arises.

You produced the statement dated 18 September of this year, that’s INQ000273750, and you’ve read that recently?

Ms Anne Longfield: Yep.

Counsel Inquiry: At the last page, can you confirm that you’ve signed that statement and the contents are true?

Ms Anne Longfield: I have.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you so much.

By way of professional background, I’m going to put it very briefly. You are somebody who has devoted her professional life to the welfare of children. Is that a fair summary of what –

Ms Anne Longfield: Well, certainly – yeah, absolutely. My whole working life has been around improving the lives of children over several decades, both in charities and in other roles.

Counsel Inquiry: Yes. And the other role, and a significant role, is that you were former Children’s Commissioner for England between April 2015 and February 2021?

Ms Anne Longfield: That’s right.

Counsel Inquiry: So during the pandemic, as it broke, you were the Children’s Commissioner for England?

Ms Anne Longfield: I was. It was my last year.

Counsel Inquiry: Your statements and the numerous exhibits you have provided show the extensive amount of material you have been involved with, dealing with a wide range of issues which affected children during the pandemic, and as my Lady said to the last witness, there is a module solely dealing with the impacts and the factors which affected children, and those matters will be explored in proper detail there.

Today you’re assisting us by providing a high level summary of the impacts on children during the pandemic.

Ms Anne Longfield: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: We talked about the Children’s Commissioner for England. Some will be familiar with what that is, but some may not be. Could you briefly explain what that role is?

Ms Anne Longfield: Yes, absolutely. It’s a statutory role which was adopted in England in 2004. It came out of Lord Laming’s Inquiry, which followed the dreadful death of Victoria Climbié, who was seen to disappear from view and was murdered by relatives. Lord Laming said no child should ever go unseen again.

The first Children’s Commissioner came into post in 2005. It’s a role which has a statutory duty to represent the views – to learn about the views and represent the views of children and represent those to decision-makers. It acts in the best interests of children, and puts forwards those relevant views. It has powers to gather evidence and to visit children who live away from home. It has a particular relevance for and responsibilities for children who are particularly vulnerable, those are the children who are in care or living away from home. And the person is able to undertake enquiries into specific policy areas or practice that are seen to be most at risk of infringing children’s rights.

Counsel Inquiry: Perhaps in one line, you were there to be the voice for children?

Ms Anne Longfield: The voice of children, the advocate for children. We’re decision makers who were making, during the pandemic, decisions on a whole range of issues which affected children’s lives.

Counsel Inquiry: The application of that role during the pandemic, is this a fair summary, that you provided advice and proposals to government and other agencies about the impact of policy and decisions on children in order to protect and promote their best interests?

Ms Anne Longfield: That’s right, and recommendations of what action could be taken both there and then but also in the future. I often saw myself as kind of the eyes and ears of children in the system, with access to those that made decisions and a responsibility to inform them about the impact of their potential decisions on children.

Counsel Inquiry: At paragraph 23 of your statement, you describe the Covid crisis as an extraordinary time for children to live through and to grow up in, and you recognise the dedication and commitment of the many teachers, social workers and other professionals and communities who worked, as you say, tirelessly to support children during that time.

Whilst recognising those efforts, what was your overall assessment of the impact of the pandemic on children?

Ms Anne Longfield: Well, there was a significant impact on children. They weren’t most at risk of some of the health concerns in society, but there was a toxic mix, I believed, of secondary issues that were likely to impact them, many drawing from what you’ve just heard in the previous witness.

My belief, and what I could see from the evidence, clearly there were some children that were more at risk, and the outcomes for those children I think has been devastating, and still leaves in a position where they may for the next 10, 20 years, have the long shadow of the Covid experience.

Counsel Inquiry: We’re just going to explore that during your evidence this morning. You talk about this toxic mix and how this had a devastating effect on certain groups of children. Let’s explore more about the differential in impact on children. Which groups of children were affected more adversely?

Ms Anne Longfield: Well, there was a wide – a huge difference in experience of children during the pandemic. Of course some children living in wealthier homes had a summer, often with their parents, who were working at home or furloughed, and they would expect those first few months – experience those very differently.

For those children living in high-rise blocks, with cramped accommodation, sometimes with unsafe homes, possibly with domestic violence and addiction, severe mental health in the house, without the digital devices to be able to get online in the first place, it was a period of – you know, that they really had never experienced to this extreme before.

It meant that whilst other children were able to get online and continue their schooling relatively easily, these were struggling to share a mobile phone, sometimes broken, between siblings. Whilst other children were able to be with family, play in the garden, these children were locked in a home unable to get out. And whilst others had support from their family to be able to get through this crisis, some children were suffering from unsafe environments where their parents were already in crisis before the pandemic.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You mention at paragraph 8 of your statement that this was of course a major challenge for most children, it was a disaster for many disadvantaged children who were already living with risks and vulnerabilities, and as your role as Children’s Commissioner for England you were concerned about those children and had focused much of your advice in reducing the risks that they faced. Did you consider that the government took into account that advice and those concerns, by way of an overview?

Ms Anne Longfield: I think that my understanding was, what I saw was that on occasions government seemed to understand what being vulnerable was, in some of these situations, but that it didn’t often follow through in terms of the policy and the practice, and the implementation of what that meant. There was an example here. Schools were kept open for vulnerable children, which was a very good thing. I was very relieved when that happened, and really supported that. But very few vulnerable children came in, often 4%. It rose to about 10% or 12%.

There wasn’t the follow-through, there wasn’t the understanding of the complexity for those children to attend, and there wasn’t the follow-through to support those children, encourage them to get into the classroom.

So I think that on occasions there was an understanding, but I think often that slipped from view, it was incoherent, and as a result children were often overlooked, and there was even occasions where it felt that they, government, was indifferent to children’s experience during Covid.

Counsel Inquiry: We’ll explore those in a moment, and you mentioned schools as one of those areas where you consider that there was understanding but not follow-through in relation to the interests and needs of children.

Let’s turn to schools, then. What was the impact on those groups of children which you were concerned about by the closure of schools?

Ms Anne Longfield: Well, the immediate impact was for many children in disadvantaged families that they were not able to continue with their studies for significant periods of time. The vast majority of children in more affluent families, attending private schools or schools that were already providing digital learning, were able to almost seamlessly continue their learning online. Others were left without online learning, with sporadic lessons that they had to download at home. Many, 1 to 1.8 million, didn’t have the digital devices to be able to do that, they didn’t have the support, and many families just didn’t have the home learning environment, the space, the support, the quietness needed to do that.

So children lost significant amounts of time out of school.

The other part of that, which links to the safeguarding element, is that they lost the structure of the day, they lost the – they lost the oversight of teachers and those around the school. So in both those ways, they were left very much to their own devices in the first instance and isolated.

Counsel Inquiry: Can I invite you just to pause there, just to help out stenographer, and just to break down your evidence a little bit more.

Ms Anne Longfield: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: We talked about schools and how things such as the digital divide we heard about impacted those who were more disadvantaged and those families and children who were more disadvantaged. You also mentioned the loss of the structure for school. Would it be fair to say that the schools form a sort of anchor in terms of social support for children in communities?

Ms Anne Longfield: Yes, it’s the school where children will often have trusted relationships with adults, it’s the school where many of the teachers will see signs that children are having a difficult time, that’s where referrals will often come from for social services. And, of course, you know, the structure of the day, children learning, children being around other children.

Counsel Inquiry: Of course.

Ms Anne Longfield: So without that there’s the learning loss but also the social loss.

Counsel Inquiry: In terms of schools, we’ve used the words the “closure of schools”, but in fact the schools never closed for all, they were open throughout, through the dedication of teachers and administrative staff, to keep the school key workers and those, who you have touched upon already, who were vulnerable children.

Was that effective in ensuring that vulnerable children were attending school?

Ms Anne Longfield: No, it wasn’t, because the vast majority of vulnerable children didn’t attend. There were very slow – low percentages in the first instance, 2, 3%. By the end of that period it climbed up to about 12%. It came alongside the messages “stay home, stay safe, don’t go out”, and there hadn’t been consideration about the impact of that universal message, which was obviously hugely impactful on families, on all families including vulnerable families, and there wasn’t the follow-through to be able to support those families to go into school.

I mean, I do believe it would have been possible to find, to get more children into school. In fact, one school told me, that had very good relationships with families, they’d managed to get 80% of vulnerable children in, but they did that through many phone calls, many visits, many emails, and that just wasn’t the experience for most areas.

Counsel Inquiry: You have been publicly critical of the decision to keep schools generally for all pupils closed during the lockdown. What was the alternative, in your view, to having the schools closed when they were?

Ms Anne Longfield: Well, I mean, I support the first closure, clearly that was necessary, but it became very clear as the month of May went on that actually there was scope to start increasing socialising. I felt that schools should have been the last to close and the first to open. But it became very clear at that point that there was a move that was moving away from schools actually opening at the first opportunity they could.

What happened was that in June and July, when we should have had a period of schools starting to open, planning being undertaken for the September term, planning for any possible future outbreak or variant to take place. Instead, schools stayed closed and instead we had pubs, we had theme parks, we had restaurants, we had the Eat Out to Help Out, instead of schools opening. And that for me was a terrible mistake and one which played a huge part in children’s very negative experience of the lockdown period.

Counsel Inquiry: I want to continue with the theme regarding vulnerable children at risk, and we described how, although the schools were open for those to attend, the numbers remained relatively low for their attendance, and you set out in your report, in your statement, at paragraph 62 that the concern was, in relation to those children who require safeguarding, that they were impacted most detrimentally, and I want to touch upon some of those features you describe about the impact on that group.

Visibility, you say that there was reduced visibility; was that right?

Ms Anne Longfield: That’s right. Children in homes that were unsafe were out of sight, which was something wouldn’t have been the case if services had been operating in a normal way, schools had been open and nurseries had been open.

Counsel Inquiry: And referrals of vulnerable children to children’s services dropped by 50% at the peak of the lockdown?

Ms Anne Longfield: Yes, that’s right.

Counsel Inquiry: There was, you say, an increase in the frequency and severity of risks and harms, at paragraph 63 of your report. Was that the position?

Ms Anne Longfield: Yes. There was an increased number of children – and this is government data to bear this out – who were harmed, especially under 1s, there was real concern about increased harms to children under 1, but also to teenagers, who were seen to be particularly vulnerable to safeguarding at this time.

Counsel Inquiry: You’ve mentioned this, and it was one of your reports in relation to domestic abuse, that local authorities between March 2020 and March 2021 reported increased concerns in relation to domestic abuse and violence and mental health difficulties amongst parents and children, and that there was acute family crisis situations.

Was that something which you –

Ms Anne Longfield: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: – experienced as a real issue during the pandemic?

Ms Anne Longfield: Yes, absolutely. And this came from a starting point where I’d been very clear in putting forward evidence that said that – my estimate was around 2.2 million children who were already living in vulnerable family situations before the pandemic, that would be mental health, severe mental health problems, addiction or domestic violence. So during this period, I was particularly heightened to the problems those children might be experiencing. We saw very quickly police reporting to me that the reason they were getting phone calls most often was around domestic violence. Domestic violence helpline skyrocketed in terms of the numbers of people using it, 67% increase, I think, in a very short period of time.

So it was very evident that where there were children in vulnerable homes – and let’s remember that 2.3 million children is actually one in six children, so this is a significant number of children – were essentially locked up in homes in unsafe environments.

Counsel Inquiry: As to the serious harm, you’ve mentioned how there was an increase between April and September 2020 of serious harm incidents involving children and, as you said, in particular infant children or those aged under 5; is that correct?

Ms Anne Longfield: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: I want to move on to deal with one topic in relation to children and public space, and that’s something again which you have been vocal at the time as Children’s Commissioner for England as to the needs for children to be considered in relation to children having access to public space. Again, briefly if you can, what was important in relation to this and child welfare?

Ms Anne Longfield: That’s right. Well, going back to my comments there about children being in cramped accommodation, sometimes unsafe accommodation, you know, they would normally go to the park, they would normally meet their friends. None of that was possible. And the whole kind of, you know, socialising in public space policy seemed to be geared towards adults. We had the one hour for exercise. Well, children don’t generally exercise, they play together.

And when we started having allowances for families or for individuals to be able to meet and then a rule of six where groups of six could meet, children often in that equation meant that families couldn’t meet together or grandparents meet together. Now, in Scotland and Wales children under 12 were exempt from that rule of six. In this country there was a firm decision to keep it simple, to say it must mean children were still part of that calculation. And that for me means that, you know, they were further isolated, they couldn’t play, they couldn’t take part in, kind of, sports, they – obesity would be a threat and a risk, and socialising and their mental health would continue to suffer. It would have been a really almost no cost, financially, way of recognising the disadvantages but also the impact that the pandemic had already had on children, to exempt them, and in this country we chose not to do it.

Counsel Inquiry: We have heard from Professor Taylor-Robinson that in relation to mental health and physical health, obesity, that there was significant increases in those areas as a result of the pandemic?

Ms Anne Longfield: That’s right.

Counsel Inquiry: One final topic I’d like you to help us with, if you can, is, you may have seen the videos, at the beginning of the Inquiry, of this module, in relation to long Covid and how that’s impacted families, and it in fact impacted children who had long Covid, and I wanted to ask you whether long Covid for children was an issue you became aware of during your time as Child Commissioner or some of the work you have undertaken thereafter?

Ms Anne Longfield: Well, I was certainly aware during the pandemic that some children had particular health needs, and they were suffering from reduced support during the pandemic, and also the effects of isolation. And since the pandemic, I have become more aware and had more conversations with those groups of families.

I think it’s important to understand and recognise this is very real, it’s a reality for families, it has a devastating impact on children and on families, and needs to be much more part of not only the debate but also the policy making decisions.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Drawing your evidence together, you’ve published a number of reforms as to how you consider that the government should put children first going forward and to avoid those detrimental impacts again, but, in your own words, what would you say – if you had one wish to try to improve the welfare of children going forward as a result of the pandemic, what would it be?

Ms Anne Longfield: I think we have to recognise that the pandemic exposed the precarious nature that many children were living their lives in, and also the levels of disadvantage in our country, alongside the machinery of government that in no way is set up to be able to support children and represent their best interests.

It was very clear that there was no one at the Cabinet table who was taking children’s best interests to those decisions. When I’ve put forward, in the past, recommendations for a minister for children – I’ve always been told it was the Secretary of State for Education – it was very clear he wasn’t part of those discussions, there was an empty chair at the table.

So I think we have to change the structure of government for children, we have to build in an understanding of the need to recognise their best interests, and then work on a government structure, including a minister for children, that can truly represent their needs, especially if there’s an emergency.

Mr Keating: Ms Longfield, I’m very grateful for your evidence today and your statement.

My Lady, that’s all the questions I propose to ask –

Questions From the Chair

Lady Hallett: Can I just ask one before we go to Ms Twite.

Ms Longfield, did anybody ever consider, instead of just keeping schools open for the vulnerable, which you say sadly not enough went, and children of key workers, whether you could have a system of having, you know, one class in one week, so at least there was some –

Ms Anne Longfield: Yeah, well I think –

Lady Hallett: Did anybody think about it?

Ms Anne Longfield: Yeah, yeah, so you can imagine there were – you know, there were various discussions that popped up and went down, and I certainly remember those. Morning and afternoons were another.

But I think what you saw in other countries was, you know, governments making a decision to take over public buildings next to schools so you’d have more space, you could do more social distance, you could have better air quality, and also to bring in, you know, reserves of ex-teachers and the like that could actually, you know, step in for staff that often were sick.

I suppose what I felt was that we had, you know, we had the fantastic Nightingale endeavour for health, furlough in terms of employment, but actually for schools we failed quite miserably, we weren’t very creative, we weren’t ambitious, and we didn’t have the recovery – you know, the recovery programmes that were put forward weren’t backed, they were turned down.

So it was as if children were very much at the back of the queue, coming second, and always being overlooked when it came to an important decision.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much.

I think I will allow – obviously I’ve said I will and I stick by it – Ms Twite to ask some questions. I think we might have already covered a couple of them, Ms Twite.

Oh, you have moved, taken Mr Weatherby up.

Questions From Ms Twite

Ms Twite: Can I say that I’m grateful to Mr Weatherby KC for allowing me to move.

And yes, indeed, some of them have been covered so I only have a couple left to ask, but I’m grateful, my Lady, for the opportunity.

Ms Longfield, I ask questions on behalf of a number of children’s rights organisation, Just for Kids Law, Children’s Rights Alliance for England and Save the Children Fund, and, as I say, you’ve already answered some of my questions, but can I just ask – you have talked about political priority for children, but can I ask, prior to the first lockdown, so in March 2020, in your experience were children then a low political priority in Westminster?

Ms Anne Longfield: They were, and I think that could be seen through the decisions that were made across government.

You’ve already heard this morning about very high levels of children’s mental health. The disparity in spending between adult and children on mental health is and remains huge. Children are, you know, 25% of the population but at various points were getting 7%, 8%, 9% of the budget.

Children often were overlooked when universal decisions were made, and actually the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, introduced what he called a “Family Test”, because he recognised that families, and with that children, were often overlooked. It didn’t get far, but he introduced it.

When it came to decisions around austerity, children were often the ones that were most at risk of losing out there, and we saw a huge reduction in services, about 70% of services around early intervention and prevention, which just drove vulnerability and disadvantage, and of course really fuelled the fact that so many now are in crisis.

Ms Twite: As far as you can answer this, do you think anything’s changed since March 2020? Have children become a greater political priority for government?

Ms Anne Longfield: Well, I momentarily thought that seeing the real life impact of vulnerability during Covid might be a change-maker, actually. People understood what this concept meant, if you like, living in a high-rise, not being able to go to the park, not having food in your cupboard. You know, this is the reality of something that can be discussed in quite kind of opaque terms. I think it was quickly forgotten.

The recovery programme and the – turning down the funds for the recovery programme, where Sir Kevan Collins put forward a £15 billion recovery programme on the request of the Prime Minister, which would have had, you know, a really significant impact on children’s lives, not only to recover from the pandemic but also to help them bounce back to a better place. That was turned down and replaced for a very narrow, much cheaper option, and that was another one of those huge mistakes of that time.

Ms Twite: Ms Longfield, I think you’ve covered what was going to be my next question, which was to ask what was particularly inadequate about the non-pharmaceutical interventions during the pandemic. But can you tell us, do you think what you’ve said is now with the benefit of hindsight or was some of this impact stuff that had been predicted by others, you or others, in the early months of the first lockdown?

Ms Anne Longfield: Well, the first thing to say is that it was predicted. There had been – you’ve heard the raft of evidence this morning. There is no shortage of evidence, academic reports, that show disadvantage up to that point, and certainly in my five years I’d been Children’s Commissioner I’d been publishing reports on a whole range of issues very, very frequently.

I don’t think you need hindsight to know that if you close schools and open restaurants, it’s not going to be in the best interests of children. I don’t think you need hindsight to know that if you’re going to be making assessments about vulnerable children and homes through a screen, where people can send you photos of what they want to send you photos of, rather than being in the room, you know that that’s not going to be in the best interests of children. And I know – you know, I think that we know if you close down playgrounds, close down open parks and keep kids in situations at home where we know there are already disadvantages and vulnerabilities, that’s not going to be in the benefits of children – best interests.

So on all those counts I think that, yes, of course, we have to look back and see what can be done differently, that’s an important part of it, but it was clear to see from the absolute start of the pandemic, and clearly predicted, what would happen unless those issues were mitigated.

Ms Twite: Finally, Ms Longfield, you told us a little bit about the differences in Wales and Scotland, and we know that there were different approaches for children in those areas. Can you say anything about those different approaches and the impact of them?

Ms Anne Longfield: Well, of course, many of the practical – or great commonalties with many of the practical things, you know, schools closed – schools closed, exams didn’t happen, you know, there were and are concerns, of course, about mental health as a result of the pandemic, but there was a very different approach because they have a much more strengthened approach to their adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is the framework for the Children’s Commissioner. They had impact assessments not only on particular policies but they also had it on their approaches overall for children.

The Children’s Commissioners were consulted much more, especially in Wales, when it’s hard to think a decision would have been made without that conversation taking place. And when it came down to making those decisions, that showed, because it showed in terms of the decision to exempt children from the rule of six and other restrictions, but also really understand the need for support for families, understand the need for support for families in poverty.

So it demonstrated that with similar legal powers, if you like, the Children’s Commissioner could be very differently involved. And also nations that set out to try to put children and families at the front.

One thing that I did was – and others too – constantly asked the Prime Minister to do a briefing in the evenings for children, especially for children. They did it in many countries. And it was really important for children to know that they weren’t alone and that this time – you know, people were thinking of them. It nearly got there several times, but it never did.

Ms Twite: Thank you, Ms Longfield.

Thank you, my Lady.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed, Ms Longfield. You are obviously a very passionate and eloquent advocate for children. I suspect we might meet again in the next module –

The Witness: Thank you very much.

Lady Hallett: – where we focus on education and young people. Thank you very much indeed for your help.

(The witness withdrew)

Lady Hallett: I think we will take the –

Mr Keating: My Lady, can I press you just for five more minutes?

Lady Hallett: Of course. Is there a summary?

Summary of questionnaire responses

Mr Keating: There is a summary, and then that may be a natural break, but I’m conscious of our stenographer who has been working very hard this morning.

My Lady, in relation to the impact questionnaires for children, we had a significant response from a wide cross-section of groups, and there was a commonality in relation to what’s said and for those reasons the summary is going to be perhaps shorter than for others, but respondents highlighted the differential impacts of poverty on learning outcomes, on children’s mental health, and there was a view that there was a lack of engagement with the sector. The majority of respondents considered that regulations and decisions were taken without due consideration or consultation of the impacts on the sector and the different subgroups within it, such as schools, children in care and children with disabilities.

Three broad themes emerge. Firstly, the impact of poverty on learning outcomes, and increased hardship, and of course we’ve heard from Professor Taylor-Robinson about that this morning.

Action for Children established an emergency fund for families using this service, and they pressed the government to move quickly to support children to have adequate resources to learn from home and their emergency fund supported families to buy equipment, and their view was that, throughout the pandemic, government action on digital exclusion took too long and provision was too limited.

In relation to the next theme, government decisions and consultation, a theme which many respondents commented upon, Save the Children stated that their core hypothesis is that children’s rights and wellbeing were not considered as a priority by decision-makers in UK Government and that this has been the case for many years, and they say that this can be evidenced both through the lack of specific approaches such as children’s rights assessments and policy developments and the absence of analysis of impacts on children in the key documents which officials prepare for ministerial decision-making.

Playing Out, another organisation, raised the lack of consideration of children in regulations, and that’s something we’ve heard of course this morning evidence in relation to.

The UK Youth consultation mentioned how decision-making was too narrow. When decisions were taken to close schools, there was little consideration of how other sectors might help alleviate the impact, such as youth workers supporting vulnerable young people, and this reflected a broader lack of recognition for youth work and that youth workers weren’t initially recognised as essential workers, and re-opening guidance was produced for schools but not youth clubs.

The Children’s Rights Alliance for England comment upon the invisibility of children in decision-making and that this was a long-standing problem which is not and was not specific to the current UK Government, something which was, as I said before, long-standing.

Finally, and again something we’ve heard evidence about today, is the long-term impact regarding mental health; a number of respondents touch upon the significant effects the pandemic had on children.

Action for Children, an organisation, talk about how the work on recovery for children has lost momentum after the end of health restrictions and there’s been little concerted effort to put in place the proportionate service response, particularly beyond tutoring provision, to help children and young people recover and bounce back from the impact of the pandemic.

My Lady, we had a significant response, and we’re very grateful for the material which we have received and of course is being considered.

That concludes this section.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Keating. Right, we’ll break now and I shall return at 11.30. Thank you.

(11.16 am)

(A short break)

(11.30 am)

Lady Hallett: Mr O’Connor.

Mr O’Connor: My Lady, between now and what I imagine will be the lunch break, we’re going to call two witnesses from the frontline worker category, that is Kate Bell from the TUC and Mr Adeyemi from the organisation FEHMO.

You can see that Ms Bell is in the witness box, but before I ask her to begin her evidence, I’m going to read out the summary relating to that area of the evidence, as you have heard with other areas of –

Lady Hallett: Thank you, Mr O’Connor.

Just before you do, just to emphasise for those who are following online, Mr Adeyemi has been brought forward from this afternoon –

Mr O’Connor: He has, yes.

Lady Hallett: – just to let people know that they need to stay watching this morning if they wish to see his evidence.

Summary of questionnaire responses

Mr O’Connor: That’s exactly right.

Well, madam, as has been explained to you now more than once, what I’m about to read is a summary of the various questionnaire responses we have received that are relevant to this area of the Inquiry’s work.

First of all, some of the responses related to the economic impacts of the pandemic on workers in low paid or precarious employment.

The organisation United Voices of the World stated that their members had to continue working through their illness in order to survive financially rather than self-isolating, at great risk to themselves and the wider public health. They noted that many workers had no access to full pay sick pay and suggested that the rate of statutory sick pay was inadequate to cover basing living costs, such that many workers could not financially afford to be absent from work through self-isolation.

It was also noted that some workers, such as those in the gig economy, had no access similarly to statutory sick pay.

United Voices of the World called for public sector organisations to stop what they describe as two-tier outsourcing and ensure that all workers in workplaces are accorded the same protections.

The same organisation, United Voices of the World, cited the story of their member, Mr Gomes, who died from suspected Covid-19 when working as an outsourced cleaner at the Ministry of Justice in April 2020. They claim that Mr Gomes was forced to work through his illness as he couldn’t afford to live on statutory sick pay alone, and indeed was working a shift just a few hours before his death. They reported that the lack of sick pay prevented Mr Gomes from properly resting and self-isolating, increasing his risk of serious illness, and that he was forced to risk wider public health by exposing others to the virus.

Another area of concern, although obviously linked to the matters I’ve just mentioned is safety of working environments. Respondents to the Inquiry indicated that frontline workers in outsourced service roles such as cleaners were further impacted by substandard or absent PPE, and the precarious nature of their employment made it difficult for them to challenge this with their employer.

The Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain responded to the Inquiry and noted that couriers and logistic workers were already handling the transport of biological samples for Covid-19 testing as early as January 2020, but, they said, whilst medical staff were provided with PPE, couriers received no protective equipment from their employers and collected these samples at significant risk to themselves and their households.

Moving to a few responses relating more directly to impacts on healthcare workers, the TUC stated that they raised the adequate availability of PPE across the healthcare sector on several occasions, and there was acknowledgement from the government that most hospitals were close to running out of supply as early as 19 March 2020, four days, of course, before the country entered lockdown.

The British Medical Association similarly underlined that government decisions and actions in relation to PPE supply, procurement and domestic manufacturing of PPE, also the adequacy of PPE guidance and PPE fit testing, all contributed to healthcare workers in general, and certain groups of healthcare workers in particular, being placed at greater risk of exposure to Covid-19 and adverse physical and mental health outcomes as a result.

Doctors from ethnic minority backgrounds more commonly experienced shortages and pressure to work in environments without sufficient PPE, and ethnic minority doctors and those with a disability or long-term health condition were more likely to report feeling worried or fearful to speak out about a lack of PPE.

FEHMO highlighted the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on BAME staff, particularly in the health and care sectors. Delays in addressing impact and the provision of national guidelines and policy led, they said, to inconsistencies between hospital trusts as to how to protect staff, and NHS employers did not provide updated guidance on prioritisation and management of risk, including ethnicity, until July 2020.

Little progress was made on implementing the recommendations of the June 2020 Public Health England report on the impact of Covid on BAME groups, they said.

Finally by way of this introduction, the TUC, as we’ll hear from Ms Bell shortly, provided, as her second statement, a series of descriptions of individual experience, and one of those was from an NHS employee and it reads as follows:

“Talking about Covid gives a lot of people flashbacks because people were dying in front of us and our morgue was full. We had no body bags left in the trust in order to cover the number of deaths. We were asked to change at work but not provided with any showering facilities for staff, so we had to use the patient facilities. PPE was in shortage, yet we had to change each time we assisted a new patient. My hands were painful from the process of de-gloving, washing hands and applying sanitiser on a daily basis.

“Whilst this was going on, we were asked to keep silent and carry on. Whilst worrying about relatives of our own, I didn’t see my family for two years. I lost colleagues whilst I was working each day and the government barely acknowledged that fact. Most of my colleagues now suffer with an anxiety disorder or PTSD, and many have lost their passion for working in our NHS. How were we rewarded no pay increase or recognition of national service through a pandemic?

“Long Covid has affected many of my colleagues, and some people have even had to come out of work, a place many had worked in for up to 25 years.

“My worst day was walking home after we lost eight patients in one shift. I couldn’t bear to look in the mirror. I cried for two days and was sick to my stomach. A week later I was told that my colleague’s daughter had passed away through Covid. She was 35 and a teacher. The frightening thing is that no one has addressed the mental health impact which the pandemic has had and continues to have on the staff. No one wants to talk about it. Even writing this statement, I feel sick thinking about the many awful things which happened.”

So, my Lady, that is the end of that summary, and may I ask that Ms Bell is – I’m afraid I’m not sure if she’s going to be sworn or affirmed.