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

Ms Mitchell: I appear as instructed by Aamer Anwar & Company on behalf of the Scottish Covid Bereaved.

In Module 1 we found out that the little pandemic planning that did exist was for the wrong pandemic. In this module, we found out that we’d a Prime Minister, the man ultimately responsible for all decision-making, described by those closest to him, saying his was the “wrong crisis for [Boris Johnson’s] skillset”. It would be difficult to understate the horror, the rage, the pain felt by the Scottish Covid Bereaved who had to listen to some evidence in this module. Between January and March 2020, the only advantage the UK had was time. This was squandered by the UK Government, as we all watched in real time the tsunami of the pandemic sweeping through Italy and the rest of Europe before reaching our shores. In that crucial period, the virus grew at an exponential rate. The UK Government failed to check there was any pandemic plan in place, failed to ensure testing capacity was available, failed to identify the likelihood and then the effect of asymptomatic transmission, failed to check whether there was sufficient PPE, failed to impose border restrictions, failed to understand the science they later claimed to be following, failed to lock down in time, failed to consider the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on the vulnerable, the disabled and on the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, failed to recognise the specific impact on the health and social care sector.

Instead, the collective hamartia of this group was their groundless confidence that the UK would be okay despite every comparative example, particularly in Europe, pointing to the opposite outcome. The hubris of the UK Government left us defenceless by March 2020.

By Friday 13 March 2020, the horror that the civil service and politicians began to understand, what the scientists had known for many weeks but were seemingly unable to communicate or have understood, that the pandemic would rapidly overwhelm us and our beleaguered health services.

Far from dealing with a Churchillian leader, the politicians and civil servants, themselves involved in infighting and a toxic, misogynistic and macho working environment, found themselves managing a Prime Minister which meant repeatedly having to explain basic facts about the virus, not pushing things too heavily in case they pushed him the other direction, as we saw the evidence of the handshake, and he careered about so wildly that he was referred to as the trolley, agreeing with the last person who popped in to speak to him when he had been left unsupervised by his advisers.

Post facto suggestions that Hegelian decision-making was employed is laughable in the face of the evidence of the most senior civil servants in this country. The Cabinet was sidelined, COBR was a sham, Potemkin meetings, where decisions taken earlier were rubber stamped, the democratically appointed representatives from Scotland were excluded from meetings, blocked from meeting the Prime Minister for optical reasons but were then accused of playing politics. Scientific advice was dismissed in favour of the breezy optimism of the ill informed.

Our people faced the greatest threat since World War II, yet at the very time when we were all being urged to come together, the truth of the matter was that the UK Government was falling apart.

General apologies offered for failure suggest a humility not followed through in evidence by politicians. Many took repeated opportunities to explain what they thought they had done well, rather than actually answer questions.

Most of the evidence we have about what actually happened during the time has not come from minutes of meetings or documents created by public bodies, it’s come from the WhatsApp messages of those in government and the contemporaneous notes made by, for example, Sir Patrick Vallance and those involved in the decision-making process. Evidence before this Inquiry has exposed the chaos, dysfunction and – Boris Johnson’s own words – those at the heart of his government were engaged in a disgusting orgy of narcissism. A government incapable and unable to act when called upon to do its duty to protect its people.

From Friday 13 March there followed ten deadly days of delay before the decision to lock down was taken. During that period the virus was doubling every three days, and this Inquiry heard the shocking evidence of the then Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, who said that locking down three weeks earlier would have cut deaths in the first Covid wave by 90%.

As the pandemic continued, the toxic environment spread beyond the UK Government, the Scottish Government was accused of taking decisions for the sake of being different, rather than acknowledging the obvious fact that the Scottish Government was responsible for the health of its nation and that of Scotland. Most often cited examples of doing things differently for the sake of it were the cancelling of mass gatherings and the use of face masks in school. It was suggested at the time that the Scots were going soft on mass gatherings and wanting to make totemic decisions to shut them down. Evidence before the Inquiry confirms Boris Johnson’s stance that he should have cancelled mass gatherings earlier.

In relation to the face mask policy, the World Health Organisation advice changed and in the days after the Scottish Government changed its policy, the UK Government some time later followed suit.

Boris Johnson suggested the most crucial tool in the pandemic was communication. Those within the UK Government repeatedly suggested that the First Minister speaking to the people of Scotland about the health of the nation was apt to cause confusion, yet it has plainly been shown by expert evidence, at a time when clarity of messaging was so critical a tool, potentially deadly confusion was caused by the UK Government who repeatedly failed to properly distinguish the pandemic health messages between the four countries of the United Kingdom, finding itself in public message unable to distinguish between the UK, England, this country, and Britain.

None of this is to say that the decisions taken by the Scottish Government were always correct. The Scottish bereaved look forward to the same robust scrutiny that has been applied to the UK Government being applied in Module 2A, which starts in January 2024.

According to the National Records of Scotland, as of June 2023, when this Inquiry began, there were 17,646 deaths in Scotland where Covid was mentioned on the death certificate. In the last three years, over a quarter of a million people have died from Covid in the UK. Each of those deaths not only represents an individual tragedy, but has affected the friends and family, the loved ones of each of those who died.

How does this Inquiry make recommendations in all the foregoing circumstances? May we suggest the words of the most senior and respected civil servants in the UK Government be considered.

Firstly, Helen MacNamara, who served as Deputy Cabinet Secretary in Cabinet Office during the first year of the pandemic. She said in evidence:

“I think that the important thing is … how do you make sure that when anybody is in those sorts of situations again there are structures and systems that mitigate against what will happen to human beings in that situation.”

Secondly, Simon Case, from whom this Inquiry has yet to hear, but whose WhatsApp messages disclosed what was said in relation to Mr Johnson:

“Gov’t isn’t actually [this] hard, but this guy is … making it impossible.”

Accordingly, my Lady, the Scottish Covid Bereaved suggest in outline at this stage a number of possible recommendations:

One, a review of the organisational cultures within Whitehall, to look at the entirety of what happened across Whitehall during that period of time to try to understand why, and then how we can make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

As Helen MacNamara noted:

“… I think – those are the civil service questions: why did this happen? Why did the collective group of people decide to do things that are so clearly in the wrong place? And then how do we make sure [it] doesn’t happen again?”

Secondly, a review of the organisation of government. An insight in this module which would be fascinating if it were not equally as horrifying is that there appeared to be no substructure to the UK Government. Those formal structures of government that should have been in place were swept away in the pandemic. Groups which should have formed, such as the Joint Ministerial Committee, were not implemented, meantime ad hoc groups with no proper structure, authority, due diligence or recording procedure appeared. Without doubt, the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations required a seat at any table where decisions are being taken which affect the people they represent. And that, I would respectfully submit, is something that should also be considered.

Three, a review of the culture of government to address the striking lack of diversity, the misogynistic behaviour which saw women talked over and made to become invisible.

Four, the role of special advisers to government to be formalised and made accountable to an independent body, so that no unelected individuals can enforce their ideas and plan by sheer force of personality, overriding the democratic process.

Five, to consider the formation of two bodies, economic SAGE and, in the event of the next pandemic, a UK science advisory council much like the Scottish Covid advisory council which was set up.

Six, data sharing. There needs to be a centralised unit to bring in health data, to collate it, to aggregate it, and then to disaggregate it, so that in the next inevitable pandemic we can use one of our most important resources, knowledge, to greater effect.

Seven, the establishment of an expert hot tubbing group, experts from different disciplines to assist both the UK Government and the devolved governments to advise on the interaction of those disciplines, rather than the government alone weighing up different concerns. Had such a group been in place, the false dichotomy which we have heard about of economy versus health could have been argued and explored by experts in health, economy, behavioural sciences, et cetera, rather than leaving it to the government.

Eight, lastly, and unsurprisingly, a legal requirement that all communications relating to the work and decision-making of the UK and devolved governments, including of course electronic communications such as WhatsApp, must be saved and recorded in order that there be transparency in the decision-making process within government.

My Lady, these are only some of the outline recommendations from the Scottish Covid Bereaved.

However, before concluding, at the start of this Inquiry, Aamer Anwar on behalf of the Scottish Covid Bereaved presciently stated:

“… it is for this Inquiry to illuminate the truth.

“Over the coming months and years there may be times this inquiry may falter, but it cannot afford to fail. It will undoubtedly come under sustained and repeated attacks.

“It must, however, never be afraid to raise its voice for the truth: that is the very least we owe to those who lost their lives …”

There has indeed been sustained and orchestrated attacks, and at times personal, on this Inquiry, its Chair, and its legal team. Those we represent in the Scottish Covid Bereaved wish to make it clear that any such attacks on the work of the UK Covid Inquiry are an attack on the bereaved who want the work of this Inquiry to continue without fear or favour.

Before we finalise our submissions, we wish to conclude to peruse some of the disclosure that we still haven’t finalised, and also listen carefully today and tomorrow to the views expressed by the other core participants, and will provide detailed written submissions in January.

These are the oral submissions on behalf of the Scottish Covid Bereaved.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed, Ms Mitchell.

Right, I think we’ll take a break now. I shall return at 11.25.

(11.08 am)

(A short break)

(11.25 am)

Lady Hallett: There is – just as I was coming in, I don’t know if the news had reached you, that – the news that Mark Drakeford has resigned.

Ms Harris: Yes, thank you, my Lady, we did hear that news. Thank you.

Lady Hallett: Ms Harris.