A transcript of the Module 2B Third Preliminary Hearing on 12 December 2023

(10.00 am)

Lady Hallett: Good morning.

This is the third preliminary hearing for module 2B, key decision-making in Wales, and Mr Tom Poole King’s Counsel will now explain to me what issues are outstanding before the hearings in early-ish 2024.

1. Statement by Lead Counsel to the Inquiry for Module 2B

Mr Poole: My Lady, as you’ve said, this is the third preliminary hearing in Module 2B, which relates to the core political and administrative decision-making of the Welsh government in its management of the Covid-19 pandemic.

I don’t propose to reintroduce the core participants or their legal representatives. There remain nine core participants in Module 2B, and all are legally represented. We’ve received four sets of written submissions for today’s hearing, and I believe that you’ll be hearing from three separate legal representatives later this morning.

We are, of course, extremely grateful to all of the core participants for having provided us with their observations and insights, and also for the brevity with which they have done so. Whilst I do not propose to address all of the points which they have raised, I hope during the course of my submissions this morning to address those which appear to us to be of the greatest significance.

My Lady, may I start with the list of issues for consideration in Module 2B.

In August last year, the Inquiry published its provisional outline of scope for Module 2B, alongside similar scopes for the associated Modules 2, 2A and 2C. Since then, your legal team has been conducting an investigation within the remit of those published documents. You directed at the last preliminary hearing that the Inquiry circulate a more detailed list of issues to core participants. That list was sent on 12 May and we received insightful and constructive comments from all of the core participants, for which we are very grateful.

Following consideration by your Ladyship and the Module 2B team, a revised list of issues was provided to core participants alongside the CTI note on 30 October.

The list of issues attempts to frame with clarity the matters which will ultimately be addressed in your report into the matters covered by Module 2B. As was intimated at the last preliminary hearing, the Inquiry has sought to co-ordinate the scopes of each part of Module 2 so as to ensure fairness and consistency among the four nations of the United Kingdom.

As was predicted, our investigations have inevitably shown that the broad issues identified in the scopes differ somewhat as between the four nations. The timeline in Module 2B thus differs from that in Modules 2, 2A and 2C. The issues to be examined are inevitably different, due to the different structures involved in decision-making in Wales, the different trajectory of the pandemic in Wales, devolution considerations, and Wales’ different advisory arrangements and legislative and enforcement mechanisms.

The objective throughout has been to achieve consistency across Module 2, 2A, 2B and 2C to the extent that the facts will bear, but also to acknowledge that these differences must be respected.

A question has been posed by one of the core participants as to whether the list of issues will be kept under review. I want to assure all core participants that the list of issues is not closed. Our understanding of the scope increases on a daily basis, and so the possibility that further important issues will be identified remains open. However, for practical purposes, the list needs to be given some element of finality, and with that caveat our list is now, in our view, in such a form.

Lastly on the list of issues, one core participant has advanced submissions concerning the extent to which Module 2B will cover the care sector. Of course there will be exploration through the high level political decision-makers of the broad reasons why care-related decisions were taken as they were, but the detailed examination of the merits of that process and the operational impact of such decisions is outside the scope of this module, and your Ladyship this morning has opened a separate investigation into the care sector across the UK.

My Lady, may I then turn to the issue of Rule 9 requests which have been issued by the Inquiry.

Can I start by saying that a huge amount of work has been done since we last met and at very considerable pace. The Inquiry has worked extremely hard to ensure that it and the core participants can be ready for the public hearings scheduled in February and March next year under this most demanding of timetables. Tens of thousands of documents and exhibits have been received from material providers so far, although not all of them, of course, are relevant and disclosable.

My Lady, may I commend the legal team in Module 2B for their diligence and hard work in scoping, drafting and issuing so many Rule 9s and in dealing with the array of documentation that has been received.

As of this morning the Module 2B team have issued more than 274 formal requests for evidence under Rule 9, some in conjunction with Modules 2, 2A and 2C, but the vast majority in Module 2B alone.

To give a sense of the breadth and width of your Inquiry’s reach, Rule 9 requests have been sent to numerous Welsh Government directorates, the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales, and other public bodies in Wales, including local health boards, which played a role in or have a relevant perspective to share on the core decisions taken by the Welsh Government in its response to the pandemic in Wales.

We’ve also sent detailed Rule 9 requests to a large number of Welsh ministers and key advisers during the pandemic, including the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, the former Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething, the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, Sir Frank Atherton, and the Welsh Chief Scientific Adviser for Health, Dr Rob Orford.

A further 82 Rule 9 requests have been made jointly with other Inquiry modules, and 40 Rule 9 questionnaires have been issued to members of the Welsh Technical Advisory Group and its related subgroups.

The joint requests that have been made include a very significant number of impact questionnaires that have been sent to bodies and organisations representing individuals who might be considered to have a greater risk or vulnerability. My Lady, that includes groups including the bereaved, women, children and young people, ethnic groups, those suffering from health inequalities, including Long Covid and mental health issues, members of the LGBTQI+ community, workers’ groups and health professionals.

The issue of inequalities, since this has been raised by the core participants, has been included in practically every Rule 9 request issued by Module 2B, including those in core decision-making in Wales and their advisers.

My Lady, the number of Rule 9 requests, and the wide range of organisations, entities and people who have received such requests, although highlighting the scale of your task, provides ample reassurance that we have cast our investigative net sufficiently widely.

In addition, we have accepted additional suggestions from core participants as to who should receive Rule 9 requests and we’ve carefully considered each of these and acted upon those suggestions when appropriate. In fact, in their submissions for this morning’s preliminary hearing, the disabled people’s organisations have suggested two further Rule 9 recipients, both of whom the Inquiry has now issued Rule 9 requests to.

We are also considering the helpful suggestions received from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru, and will take those forward if we consider it necessary.

It goes without saying that we are very grateful to all those who have engaged with the requests and who have provided statements.

Before leaving Rule 9 requests, there are two aspects of the Rule 9 process that have unfortunately caused some problems. First, a number of draft statements have either contained insufficient detail or did not address all of the matters raised in the Rule 9 request, so the Inquiry has asked a number of witnesses to expand upon the matters raised in their draft statements. The work required to consider those draft statements and to send requests back for further detail has an obvious impact upon the workload of the Inquiry and upon the process of disclosure. However, we do not consider that overall the timetable will be significantly impacted, and we are confident that the final signed statements and exhibits will be disclosed for them to be reviewed by core participants in good time, ahead of the public hearings next year.

Second, in respect of a number of entities and individuals, there has been a failure to respond sufficiently quickly to the Rule 9 requests, necessitating repeated extensions to deadlines. We are on top of the issue and it is expected that all finalised statements, exhibits and disclosure will be provided by the end of this month.

I wish to emphasise, however, the absolute need to comply with these final deadlines, given the diminishing time before the substantive hearings. Further requests for extensions are unlikely to be granted.

My Lady, may I next turn to the Welsh Government.

Unsurprisingly, given the scope of this module, a significant proportion of Rule 9 requests have been made to the Welsh Government, its directorates and individuals who played key roles in its response to the pandemic. In most cases the requests that have been made have required considerable work to be completed within demanding timescales, and I would like to acknowledge that the Welsh Government and their legal team have worked very hard to respond to the requests, and we are very grateful to them for that co-operation.

There have been some delays and extensions have been sought, some with good reason. The Inquiry recognises that there has been a significant volume of materials sought from the Welsh Government. This, however, has to be balanced against the fact this is an Inquiry into Welsh Government core decision-making during the pandemic. Those core participants that have expressed concerns with the disclosure from the Welsh Government can rest assured that we have been working with their team and all outstanding disclosure was largely provided by the end of November, subject to additional Rule 9s which have recently been sent.

My Lady, I would like to draw attention to two specific matters. The first concerns informal messaging, namely WhatsApps and texts; the second, notebooks.

You will be aware, my Lady, that the issue and content of informal communications, in particular WhatsApp and text messages, has become a prominent part of the Inquiry’s investigations into core decision-making by the UK Government in Module 2. Those conducting this module’s investigations have thus been aware for some time of the need to investigate the use of such informal messages by those involved in the Welsh Government response to the pandemic. We are very aware that messages sent by informal methods of communication between key decision-makers and their advisers, discussing information, advice and the management of the pandemic in Wales, can provide important information about and context to decisions and issues which are to be addressed in this module. We therefore welcome the submissions made by counsel to the Welsh Government at the Module 2 preliminary hearing in June this year when it was said that the Welsh Government intends to fulfil all such requests made of it by this Inquiry for WhatsApp messages, diaries and the like without any prior redaction.

As a result of the significance of informal messaging in the way that the government business was conducted in Westminster, in our first Rule 9 to the Welsh Government in October last year we asked the Welsh Government to explain whether there were WhatsApp groups, group chats, that key decision-makers used to communicate about decisions or to make decisions. The Welsh Government was also put on notice that the Inquiry may request disclosure of emails, WhatsApps and texts through the course of its investigation. Similar requests and notifications were also made to other significant Welsh public bodies, including Public Health Wales and local health boards.

As I have already set out, extensive individual Rule 9 requests were also compiled for individuals who worked within the Welsh Government operation, including senior scientific and medical advisers. For the avoidance of doubt, we sought not only messages in which decisions were communicated, but also messages in which matters relating to government decision-making were raised, in order that a full assessment of the basis upon which such decisions were arrived at could be undertaken.

Some of the witness statements that we have received from key decision-makers within the Welsh Government suggest that informal communications such as WhatsApp messages were used to discuss matters around the progress of the pandemic in Wales. Following discussions with the Welsh Government, the Module 2B team received its first set of WhatsApp messages in early October this year, and as of today the Inquiry has received 21 transcripts of WhatsApp group chats and 163 transcripts of individual WhatsApp or text message conversations during the pandemic, provided by a number of different individuals within the Welsh Government, including the First Minister.

These transcripts have been reviewed and a large proportion of them are currently at the material provider review stage with the Welsh Government, following which they will be made available to core participants.

The Module 2B team has also issued a further Rule 9 request to the Welsh Government for a corporate statement on the use of informal messages, as well as individuals within the Welsh Government, asking for the provision of further information and an explanation where WhatsApps and texts exchanged during the pandemic do not appear to have been provided to the Inquiry or retained. A response to that request was received on Friday last week and is being reviewed.

The Inquiry is also receiving responses from individuals on a rolling basis, which will be made available for core participants once they have been through the material provider review process.

Finally on the issue of informal messaging, I would like to add that the Inquiry intends to keep an open mind as to the significance of the responses and not rush to the conclusion that these messages provide the key to understanding the processes of Welsh Government decision-making during the pandemic. We will not rush to conclusions, but reach them on the basis of the evidence that the Inquiry uncovers.

As regards notebooks, the Welsh Government has provided us with access to over 100 contemporaneous notebooks from individuals within the Welsh Government, including ministers. The Module 2B team have been undertaking physical reviews of those notebooks to determine relevance and the Welsh Government has confirmed that no further notebooks are available for review. A full review of the notebooks is presently under way by the Inquiry and a tranche has already been disclosed to core participants. Further tranches will continue to be provided on a rolling basis when available.

If I can move next to an issue regarding data loss, which has been raised by one of the core participants.

On 2 August this year, we received notification from Digital Health and Care Wales of a potential data loss issue in relation to the Microsoft 365 email service which could impact all health boards, trusts, special health authorities and primary care organisations in NHS Wales. My Lady, you will not be surprised to hear that we took this issue seriously and made immediate enquiries with material providers that might have been affected.

We understand that from all of the Rule 9 requests made in this module, only one individual has been impacted by the data loss issue and the position is explained in their witness statement.

Turning then, my Lady, to the issue of the general state of disclosure of documents to core participants.

As of this morning, Module 2B has received 30,838 documents in total, including 58 questionnaire responses from impact organisations, 32 questionnaire responses from members of TAG and TAC, and 148 Rule 9 statements. To date we have disclosed 12,396 documents in total to core participants, including 67 Rule 9 statements and supporting documents which include some Module 2 statements relevant to our module, 48 questionnaire responses from impact organisations including those jointly instructed with Modules 2, 2A and 2C, and 32 questionnaire responses from members of TAG and TAC.

We will continue to make disclosure to core participants on a regular basis and hope to shortly disclose witness statements and exhibits from various Welsh ministers. The Inquiry expects to have received all draft witness statements in sufficient time to enable disclosure of the vast majority of signed statements by the end of this month.

The Welsh Government has been providing documents to the Inquiry on a rolling basis, and subject to a few Rule 9s which have been issued recently, has confirmed that it has provided all general disclosure in response to Rule 9 requests made of it over the last 12 months. As a result, whilst some 12,396 documents have been disclosed across 42 tranches of material, Module 2B still has a significant volume of documents left to review, assess for relevance, and work through before they can be disclosed to core participants.

The Module 2B legal team is working swiftly to review materials which have been disclosed to it, and I’m very grateful to the material providers who are assisting with this important process and doing so at pace. There remains much to be done, and materials will continue to be made available to core participants as quickly as possible.

I propose to say something next about cross-modular disclosure.

The Inquiry is aware that some evidence received by Module 2 and some oral evidence provided at the Module 2 public hearings is likely to be relevant to Module 2B. In order to ensure that core participants have access to Module 2 material that is relevant to Module 2B, the Inquiry is conducting a cross-modular review to identify such relevant material. As a number of our core participants have been core participants, and hence involved in the work of the prior modules of the Inquiry, they will have had access to this material already, and indeed may be well placed to assist with drawing our attention to documents which they think autumn to form part of Module 2B evidence proposals in due course.

The Inquiry intends to disclose any material considered relevant to Module 2B to core participants, and indeed has already started to do so. This will include witness statements, exhibits and aspects of general disclosure that has been received by Module 2. We will, however, be limiting the disclosure of material to those documents that are strictly relevant, ie where a witness statement discusses issues relevant to Module 2B it will be disclosed to core participants. It follows that not all of the exhibits, however, to such witness statements will be disclosed in Module 2B. They will only be disclosed if those exhibits are considered relevant to this module.

My Lady, the next issue on the agenda concerns preparations for the public hearings in February and March next year.

My Lady, may I start by addressing you briefly on the issue of timing, because I want to say something about the very considerable progress that the Inquiry has already made, and about the timing of the public hearings next year.

We have proceeded at a remarkable pace. No Inquiry with so wide a scope has ever proceeded with such speed. Having said that, the Inquiry process is simply not designed to assemble every single document and person relevant to the preparation for, response to, or the impact of the Covid pandemic. That would be an impossible task, and no sensible Inquiry could ever contemplate it. What we’ve done is to seek the witnesses and documents that you have considered are most relevant to the issues that you’ve decided you want to explore. This is especially so in Module 2B, and the associated Modules 2, 2A and 2C, because they are concerned with high-level political and administrative decision-making. We are not enquiring into every aspect of every decision on Covid made by the Welsh Government. It is an inquiry into only such parts of the decision-making process that appear to you to really matter.

But even then, my Lady, I need to put the core participants on notice that it is impossible to call every witness who can give evidence of every issue covered in every paragraph of the list of issues. We have neither the time nor the resources, and I daresay the core participants and the general public would not wish it to be so.

So choices will have to be made as to which witnesses will be called at the public hearings, but, my Lady, there can be no doubt by the time of those hearings sufficient material will have been secured and disclosed to core participants to enable you to be satisfied you can conduct an absolutely full and fair Inquiry.

As to hearing preparation, as previously announced, the hearings in Module 2B are scheduled to be held at the Mercure Cardiff North Hotel, starting on 27 February next year and concluding on 14 March. As regards the venue, work is under way to address the issues of access raised by some of the core participants, such as a daily shuttle service from the centre of Cardiff to the venue.

As to the hearings themselves, ahead of the hearings Module 2B intends to share key documents which it has prepared with core participants. It is likely that this will include a chronology of key decisions and events, details of the structures involved in Welsh Government decision-making, and the identity of key individuals involved in such decision-making.

The intention of these will be that they will cover some of the uncontroversial background allowing the hearings themselves to focus on the key controversies and issues. It is also intended that key aspects of the agreed uncontroversial background will be set out in my opening statement at the start of the public hearings.

In addition, core participants will be invited to engage in the hearing preparation process which has been adopted by the Inquiry in Module 2. This will involve evidence proposals being produced and core participants being permitted to propose important documents and suggest potential lines of questioning for witnesses in connection with those evidence proposals, which will be sent to them in advance of the hearings.

The intention in our module is to try to follow a regimented process, whereby a draft evidence proposal for a witness is circulated to core participants a certain period before a witness is due to give evidence, with clear indicators as to the date by which a response is expected.

The same will apply to applications to contribute to questions to be asked by Counsel to the Inquiry or applications to ask questions, the opportunity for both being invited simultaneously.

Thus the timescales for each witness in which a particular core participant might be interested will be clearly prescribed from the start, hopefully increasing certainty and providing a reasonable opportunity to contribute to the hearing preparation process.

Precise details and timings of what we intend in this regard will continue to be provided to core participants either as necessary or in monthly update notes issued in due course.

I turn next to expert witnesses.

As set out in the previously monthly update notes, Module 2B, in conjunction with Modules 2, 2A and 2C, has issued instructions to the following experts who have agreed to provide evidence to the Inquiry on matters relating to Wales which will be covered by this module:

Professor Thomas Hale, from the Blavatnik School of Government University of Oxford, has reported on international data relating to the Covid-19 pandemic, in particular in analysing the effectiveness of the decision-making of the UK and each of the devolved administrations to the pandemic in comparison to other countries. This report has been disclosed to core participants in final form and was presented at Module 2’s public hearing on 11 October.

Professor Ailsa Henderson, from the University of Edinburgh, has reported on the political structures for devolution within the UK and mechanisms for intergovernmental decision-making between the UK Government and the devolved administrations during the Covid-19 pandemic. This report has been disclosed to core participants in final form and was presented at Module 2’s public hearing on 9 October.

An expert report relating to political decision-making in the management of the pandemic in Wales has also been commissioned by Module 2B from Professor Daniel Wincott, professor of law and society in the School of Law and Politics at Cardiff University. This report is currently in draft form and has been circulated to core participants for their comments following a similar process to the finalisation of other expert reports which have been commissioned by the Inquiry.

The Inquiry appreciates that we have set a tight deadline for core participants to provide their comments on Professor Wincott’s draft report. We are grateful for their understanding and continued engagement.

Expert reports of indirect relevance to the matters for consideration in Module 2B were also commissioned from Alex Thomas and Gavin Freeguard.

Alex Thomas, from the Institute for Government, has been instructed to report on the decision-making structures of the UK Government in an emergency, in particular the Cabinet Office, Cabinet committees and the office of the Prime Minister. And Gavin Freeguard, former programme director and head of data and transparency at the Institute for Government, has been instructed to report on the access to and the use of data by the UK Government during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Reports from these two experts have been disclosed to core participants in final form: Gavin Freeguard’s report presented at the Module 2 public hearing on 10 October, and Alex Thomas’ report on 13 October.

One core participant has queried whether the issue of data sharing covered by Gavin Freeguard in respect of the UK Government will be covered by another expert in respect of Wales. As previously explained in our monthly update notes, the Inquiry has unfortunately been unable to identify an independent expert who can address data governance issues in Wales. We have there are issued Rule 9 requests to individuals involved with data governance within Wales so as to gather relevant evidence in this regard. This approach has also been adopted in Modules 2A and 2C.

In your Ladyship’s ruling of 9 March, your Ladyship directed that the Inquiry should obtain evidence from an expert or experts on the nature and degree of pre-pandemic structural racism. This ruling also makes clear that expert evidence should be obtained regarding pre-existing structural discrimination on other grounds.

The following experts have been instructed, including in relation to matters within the Module 2B scope relating to Wales. Evidence from these experts has been adduced and led in Module 2:

Professor James Nazroo, professor of sociology at the University of Manchester and deputy director of the ESRC Centre on the Dynamics and Ethnicity, and Professor Laia Bécares, professor of social science and health at King’s College London, have produced a report on pre-pandemic inequalities by race and ageing, including expertise on the role of structural racism. This report has been disclosed to core participants in final form and was presented at the Module 2 public hearings on 5 October.

Professor James Nazroo is also contributing expertise on later life, this report having been disclosed to core participants in final form. Both of Professor Nazroo’s reports were presented at Module 2’s public hearing on 5 October.

Professor Thomas Shakespeare, professor of disability research at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Professor Nicholas Watson, associate professor of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow, are contributing expertise on pre-pandemic inequalities associated with disabilities. This report has been disclosed to core participants in final form and was presented at the Module 2 public hearing on 9 October.

Professor Laia Bécares is also providing expertise on pre-pandemic inequalities for members of the LGBTQI+ community. This report’s been disclosed in final form to core participants and was presented at the Module 2 public hearing on 9 October.

Dr Clare Wenham, associate professor of global health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, is providing expertise on pre-pandemic gender inequalities. This report has been disclosed to core participants in final form and was presented at the Module 2 public hearing on 6 October.

Professor David Taylor-Robinson, professor of public health and policy at the University of Liverpool, is providing expertise on pre-pandemic childhood inequalities. This report has been disclosed to core participants in final form and was presented at the Module 2 public hearing on 6 October.

A further expert report has been disclosed to core participants prepared by Professor Chris Brightling, professor of respiratory medicine at the University of Leicester and chair of the NIHR Respiratory Translational Research Collaboration, and Dr Rachael Evans in relation to Long Covid. This was presented at the Module 2 public hearing on 13 October.

The current provisional intention of Module 2B is that it will not lead further evidence from the experts who have spoken about matters of general relevance across the UK, such as Professor Brightling and Dr Evans, or whose reports have specifically covered Module 2B in their remit, including Professor Henderson and Professor Hale and the inequalities experts, whose written and oral evidence already covers Welsh considerations.

The evidence which they have provided to the Inquiry remains available for consideration at the Module 2B hearings, and/or in the final report on Module 2B matters. Issues arising from their evidence about governmental (including intergovernmental) structures, NPIs and structural inequality and, by extension, inequality in political decision-making and outcomes, have been and will be canvassed at the Module 2B hearings with other witnesses. It is also likely that I will cover key aspects of this evidence in my opening statement at the hearings in February.

Finally on the issue of experts, one of the core participants has asked that experts’ letters of instructions be disclosed. My Lady, in my submission, providing the letters of instruction now is neither necessary nor sufficient. Firstly, it is not necessary to have such disclosure now because the core participants will have time to receive and consider the expert reports themselves. Secondly, the provision is not sufficient because the letters of instruction provide only the framework for an expert report and can say nothing of course about the expert’s opinion. The core participants need the reports themselves in order to be able to understand what is being opined upon, and that is what we are providing.

My Lady, the final issue on the agenda this morning concerns Every Story Matters and impact films.

Every Story Matters was formally launched on 13 June this year. The experiences and stories shared are helping the Inquiry to build a comprehensive picture of how the pandemic affected people’s lives across the UK, including in Wales. An updated web form was made available in late May and to date thousands of responses have been submitted. The public information campaign to make people aware of Every Story Matters has been running on radio, billboards, in the press and digital advertising. The Inquiry has been working with charities and other organisations to promote Every Story Matters to seldom heard voices.

Campaign activity aimed at raising awareness of Every Story Matters will take place in Wales from 22 February next year and will run until the end of the Module 2B hearings. A community listening event held by members of the Inquiry team took place in Wrexham in mid-November with another in Ruthin, enabling the people of North Wales to meet the team and find out in person how they can share their story.

An impact film will be shown on the first day of the public hearings for module 2B to set the tone for subsequent proceedings, grounding them in the lived experience of individuals living in Wales who suffered and continue to suffer hardship and loss as a result of the pandemic.

The video will be played publicly at the substantive hearings of this module in February next year.

My Lady, I hope what I’ve said brings those with an interest in Module 2B up to speed with the progress which has been made since the last preliminary hearing, and sets out a roadmap as to how we intend to progress matters going forward, up to the point of our public hearings in Wales next year.

May I again on behalf of the 2B team offer our thanks for the helpful contributions made by the core participants to this hearing and the continued contribution of core participants and other material providers to the work of this module. It is very much appreciated. It is also necessary.

May I finally pay tribute to the legal team with whom I am working. The Welsh public can rest assured that they can doing all they can to deliver these hearings to the very best of their ability and with the fullest and deepest investigation into the management of the pandemic in Wales that we can achieve.

My Lady, that concludes my opening submissions in relation to the important matters raised in written submissions and in relation to the practicalities of this module.

May I lastly just seek permission to publish the core participants’ submissions and the CTI note.

And I understand you are going to hear first from Ms Heaven, on behalf of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much, Mr Poole, and I give permission for the publication of the submissions and the note.

Ms Heaven.