Transcript of Module 5 Preliminary Hearing on 6 February 2024
(10.30 am)
Lady Hallett: Good morning.
This is the first preliminary hearing into Module 5, procurement, and in a moment, Mr Richard Wald, King’s Counsel, will outline the issues the module will be exploring and any issues that I have to consider today. Mr Wald.
1. Statement by Lead Counsel to the Inquiry for Module5
Mr Wald: Thank you, my Lady.
I am Richard Wald KC, and I am the lead counsel with responsibility for the preparation and delivery of matters falling within the ambit of Module 5. I appear at this preliminary hearing along with my learned friends Mr Stoate, Ms Shehadeh, Ms Akram and Ms Ward, who are, with me, the counsel team for Module 5, the focus of which will be procurement and distribution of key healthcare-related equipment and supplies.
In accordance with the agenda for this preliminary hearing, I will address you, my Lady, so far as this module is concerned, on the following areas: first, the designation of core participants, or CPs; second, the provisional outline of scope for Module 5; third, evidence gathering; fourth, disclosure to CPs; fifth, the listening exercise for Every Story Matters; and finally, future hearing dates.
There will be, then, an opportunity for those who have been designated as CPs for this Module to make submissions if they wish to do so.
These proceedings are, of course, being recorded and live streamed to other locations. In making these arrangements, your Ladyship is fulfilling the obligation under section 18 of the Inquiries Act of 2005 to take such steps as you consider reasonable to ensure that members of the public are able to attend, or see and hear a simultaneous transmission of the proceedings.
Live streaming this hearing also allows the hearing to be followed by a greater number of people than would be able to be accommodated within the hearing room or any overspill rooms. In addition to the Inquiry’s counsel and solicitor teams, there are 12 CPs present at the hearing room today, with a further eight CPs in remote attendance. Three CPs are unable to attend today.
The lead representatives for the CPs present in the room are, in no particular order, as follows: Jesse Nicholls, counsel for Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice; Peter Wilcock KC, counsel for Northern Ireland Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice; Peter Munro, UK Anti-Corruption Coalition and partners; Aswini Weereratne, counsel for Covid-19 for Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru; Jonathan Holl-Allen KC, counsel for NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership; Philip Dayle, counsel for the Federation of Ethnic Minority Healthcare Organisations, or FEMHO; Sarah Hannaford KC, counsel for Cabinet Office and the DHSC; Thelma Stober, solicitor for Local Government Association and Welsh Local Government Association; and Andrew Kinnier KC, counsel for the Welsh Government.
The lead representatives for the CPs attending remotely are, again in no particular order, as follows: Julie Ellison, counsel for the Right Honourable Baroness Arlene Foster of Aghadrumsee and Paul Givan; Una Doherty KC, counsel for NHS National Services Scotland; Sarah Simcock, counsel for Secretary of State for Business and Trade; Karen Quinlivan KC, counsel for Conor Murphy and Michelle O’Neill; Kevin McCaffery, counsel for Scottish Covid Bereaved; Richard Pugh KC, counsel for Scottish Territorial and Special Health Boards; Julie MacKinlay, counsel for Scottish Ministers; and Georgina Whitfield, representing NHS England.
A full list of CPs in Module 5 and their recognised legal representatives has been published on the inquiry website.
As is routine in public inquiries, where there may from time to time be matters mentioned of a potentially sensitive nature, the broadcasting of the hearing will be conducted with a three-minute delay. This provides the opportunity for the feed to be paused if anything unexpected is aired which should not be. We do not expect this to arise over the course of today, but I mention it so that those who are following proceedings from further afield can understand the reasons for any such short delay.
I move, my Lady, now to the designation of CPs.
My Lady, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Inquiry Rules, the following applicants, again in no particular order, were designated as CPs: Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, Scottish Covid Bereaved, Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru, Northern Ireland Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, Welsh Government, Scottish Government Ministers, His Majesty’s Treasury, Department of Health and Social Care, the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, Department for Business and Trade, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Cabinet Office, Northern Ireland Department of Health, Local Government Association and Welsh Local Government Association, the Right Honourable Baroness Arlene Foster of Aghadrumsee and Paul Givan, Conor Murphy, Michelle O’Neill, UK Health Security Agency, NHS England, NHS National Services Scotland, Scottish territorial and special services boards, NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership, UK Anti-Corruption Coalition, and FEMHO (the Federation of Ethnic Minority Healthcare Organisations).
Finally, my Lady, for those who were either not granted CP status, or for those who did not apply to be designated as a CP, I wish to reiterate that not being a CP in Module 5 in no way precludes any person, entity or group from first applying for CP status in a later Module, second, bringing any matter to the attention of the Inquiry, third, providing evidence and information, fourth, where appropriate and relevant, giving evidence at a hearing, and five, in the case of an individual affected by the pandemic, taking part in the Inquiry’s listening exercise.
Moving on now to the scope of Module 5, my Lady, the emergence of Covid-19 in December 2019 presented this country with an unprecedented procurement challenge. Some figures illustrate the scale of this challenge. Early indications are that the Department of Health and Social Care spent in the region of £15 billion on PPE procurement through the lifetime of the pandemic, during which over 30 billion items of PPE were purchased and over 25 billion items of PPE distributed to people dealing with it.
DHSC and the Cabinet Office spent more than half a billion pounds in the early part of the pandemic to reach a target of procuring 30,000 ventilators by August 2020. By late May 2021, over 690 million lateral flow tests had been dispatched within England as part of the NHS Test and Trace programme. As my Lady will know, the National Audit Office, Audit Wales and Northern Ireland Audit Office and Audit Scotland have carried out a significant amount of work in this area.
In carrying out our investigations we are, of course, bound by the restrictions imposed by Parliamentary privilege, but as part of our investigation we will be acquiring similar relevant facts and figures of our own.
There were also significant issues which arose, the scale of which the Inquiry is engaged investigating. Early indications suggest that a number of PPE contracts awarded were later disputed. The Inquiry is also investigating concerns that some contracts awarded may have been fraudulent, that prices were inflated, or that PPE was defective or unusable.
The procurement challenges were not limited to government departments: NHS Trusts, hospitals, local authorities, and care providers all faced difficulties too.
A key focus of this module will be the way in which this challenge was met. Questions arise about how government procurement in the pandemic operated, including the effectiveness of spending controls, the prevalence of fraud and the steps taken to prevent it, any conflicts of interest or maladministration, and whether procurement processes were able to strike an appropriate balance between speed and safety on the one hand, and value for public money on the other, whilst ensuring that the process was fair and transparent.
The Inquiry must maintain a tight focus on the key issues. The Inquiry team’s investigation in relation to Module 5 is already under way, with real progress having been made. We have started the process of gathering evidence and identifying areas for expert evidence, topics to which I will return in a few moments.
The provisional outline of scope for Module 5 states that:
“This module will consider and make recommendations regarding the procurement and distribution to end-users across the four nations of the United Kingdom of key healthcare related equipment and supplies, including PPE, ventilators and oxygen.
“This module will investigate the robustness and effectiveness of procurement processes, the adequacy of items obtained (including their specification, quality and volume) and the effectiveness of their distribution to the end-user. It will examine any challenges experienced and seek to extract lessons to be learned.
“It will also consider the UK-wide procurement of lateral flow tests and free PCR tests.
“Areas to be covered in this module will include:
“1. The existence and effectiveness of processes, procedures and/or contractual provisions in place for the procurement and distribution of key healthcare equipment and supplies to the end-user prior to and during the pandemic, the suitability and resilience of the supply chains and what, if any, changes were made to procurement processes during the pandemic, and have been made subsequently. This will include examination of:
“a. The overall value of the contracts awarded;
“b. Preparedness, including pre-existing stockpiles, inventory management and suitability;
“c. Spending controls;
“d. Steps taken to eliminate fraud and the prevalence of fraud;
“e. Conflicts of interest;
“f. Contractual performance by suppliers and manufacturers;
“g. Compliance with public law procurement principles and regulations;
“h. Openness and fairness, including the [so-called] ‘high priority lane’;
“i. Decisions as to what to buy at what cost and disposal strategies;
“j. The existence of any maladministration.”
“2. Procurement of key healthcare equipment and supplies to the end-user in the period leading up to and during the pandemic. This will include the existence and effectiveness of procedures, processes and communication between the relevant bodies of the four nations in relation to procurement and the use made of mutual aid arrangements during the pandemic.”
And then, finally:
“3. The operation and effectiveness of any regulatory regimes and/or oversight (either by the procuring authority or end user) in relation to key medical equipment or supplies during the pandemic including:
“a. Guidance issued by the relevant advisers, regulators and/or government;
“b. The need for, and the efficacy of standards required by the (MHRA) [… Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] and the BSI [… British Standards Institution];
“c. The impact of any changes to the volume, technical specifications and/or quality of the products that were procured;
“d. The validation process, including benchmarks and revalidation;
“e. Safety concerns (the existence of such concerns, and how they were addressed by those responsible for procurement).”
My Lady, this scope is necessarily provisional. Although it introduces a wide range of topics, it is neither practical nor advisable to identify at this stage all the issues that will be addressed at to the Module 5 public hearing.
A number of the CPs have made suggestions for matters that should be included in the provisional outline of scope. It is not practicable for me to address all of those today. All require, and are receiving, careful consideration. It may be that some suggestions accord with our own understanding of the scope or planned refinements of the scope. There are, however, some specific matters relating to the scope that I would like to address today.
Firstly, in their joint submissions at paragraph 5, Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK and Northern Ireland Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice ask the Inquiry to investigate a number of issues relating to emergency planning in the context of procurement, stockpiling, stockpile management, international collaboration in procurement and emergency procurement processes across the four nations.
The Inquiry will be investigating these matters in relation not only to PPE, healthcare and oxygen, as suggested by these CPs in their submissions, but to include also lateral flow tests and PCRs.
Those submissions also raise a number of questions regarding decisions made during the pandemic, how quality control and counter-fraud checking was carried out, and the approach to conflicts of interest.
These are important aspects of the work that Module 5 is carrying out, and will be addressed.
Finally, the submissions also ask whether Module 5 will be considering the regulatory regime which governed procurement during the pandemic. As set out in the provisional outline of scope, Module 5 will be examining the operation and effectiveness of any regulatory regimes and/or oversight in relation to key healthcare equipment and supplies during the pandemic.
CBFJ Cymru in their submissions reiterate the importance of investigating how procurement of PPE and key equipment and supplies was carried out in Wales, as distinct from the UK Government, and urges the Inquiry to consider issues such as conflicts of interest and consideration given to domestic manufacture of PPE.
This module will examine the approach to procurement across the devolved nations, through the lens on the matters outlined in the provisional scope, as well as in respect of central UK Government decisions.
Third, the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition and partners, or UKACC, in their submissions suggest additions to the provisional scope, including investigation into the impact of procurement decisions on the day-to-day experience of frontline healthcare workers, scrutiny of the differences between business-as-usual procurement and the procurement of PPE that occurred during the pandemic, including of how technical assurance and quality control was carried out. They ask the module to investigate the effectiveness of the government’s due diligence processes and how they operated.
These issues are rightly raised, and will be investigated in the course of Module 5. The impact of procurement decisions on the day-to-day experience of frontline healthcare workers will be explored by Module 3 as well as by the Every Story Matters project.
Fourth, UKACC further raise a number of specific questions about the operation of the High Priority Lane, and suggest that it was an approach unique to the UK. The Inquiry can confirm that it will be scrutinising the reasons for and operation of the High Priority Lane within this Module.
UKACC asks that the procurement of goods, works and services for the Nightingale hospitals be included within the scope of Module 5. The establishment, funding, locations, staffing and operation of Nightingale hospitals are addressed in Module 3, healthcare systems.
A number of CPs including FEMHO and UKACC raise questions relating to a perceived lack of transparency in the procurement process, such as failures to comply with publication requirements for contract award notices. This important issue will also feature amongst those addressed in the work of Module 5.
FEMHO and UKACC also query whether this module should include the procurement of services. Your Ladyship may consider that such procurement lies beyond the scope of Module 5 and the Inquiry’s terms of reference, given that it does not relate to key equipment and supplies, and that a better approach would be for any such procurement to be addressed on a module-by-module basis as appropriate.
In their submissions, FEMHO submit that Module 5 should consider structural inequalities in procurement, including the extent to which the Public Sector Equality Duty was met in the government’s procurement decisions during the pandemic, and the differential aspects and impacts of government procurement processes, procedures and decision-making on minority ethnic healthcare workers and communities.
They also raise issues about the adequacy of PPE, publicly procured for certain minority groups, and the availability and access to lateral flow tests and PCR tests for healthcare workers. These issues will be given careful consideration as the Inquiry continues its investigation into procurement, and distribution of key healthcare equipment and supplies.
The Scottish Covid Bereaved, at paragraph 6 of their submissions, suggest that issues which the Inquiry may wish to consider include the interaction between the procurement responsibilities of the Scottish Government and UK Government, and the extent of communication and cooperation between the relevant teams in the UK Government and Scottish regions.
The Inquiry team agrees, and has already started the process of seeking evidence from all four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, and will continue to do so.
At paragraph 6 of their submissions, the Scottish Health Boards seek clarification that the Inquiry plans to intimate a detailed list of the issues to be addressed at the Module 5 public hearing as soon as practicable once its investigation has developed. I can confirm that further details will be provided in a solicitor to the Inquiry’s update notes and at further preliminary hearings.
Moving now to evidence requests and a Rule 9 update. The Inquiry has already either issued or is about to issue formal requests for evidence pursuant to Rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules of 2006, to a number of individuals and organisations which appear to it to have played a central or significant role in matters relevant to Module 5.
These include: first, UK Government departments such as the Department of Health and Social Care, His Majesty’s Treasury, the Department of Business and Trade, and the Cabinet Office; second, key decision-makers in the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and in local government; and third, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies, including NHS England, NHS National Services Scotland, the Scottish territorial and special services boards, NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership, the UK Health Security Agency and Supply Chain Coordination Limited (or SCCL).
The Inquiry is also in the process of considering and, in due course, drafting further Rule 9 requests in other key groups – I beg your pardon – to other key groups and individuals who appear relevant to the work of Module 5. These include, firstly, groups and organisations representing specific areas of interest within the scope of Module 5, including Covid bereaved groups, trade unions, and representative bodies for health and care professionals, and those representing minority or marginalised communities and individuals.
Secondly, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and UK Health Security Agency, and criminal justice and enforcement agencies.
Third, central figures in the Ventilator Challenge, and government procurement more widely.
And fourth, relevant ministers and senior government officials involved in key decision-making regarding the procurement and distribution of key equipment and supplies during the pandemic.
As my Lady is aware, the Inquiry and Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry are keen to avoid duplication between them and so the Module 5 team is checking not only the requests made by other inquiry modules but also those made by the Scottish Inquiry. That process means, inevitably, that it takes a little more time to issue Rule 9 Requests to Scottish bodies, but it is hoped that in the long run this approach will assist in minimising unnecessary repetition.
In that regard I should add that on 23 February 2022 the Inquiry published a memorandum of understanding setting out how this Inquiry and the Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry intend to work effectively together. I am also aware that your Ladyship has met with the chair of the Scottish Inquiry, Lord Brailsford, to discuss the constructive ways in which the two inquiries can collaborate and cooperate.
Moving now to experts, Module 5 is in the process of identifying the broad areas where expert evidence is likely to be of assistance to this inquiry. An example of such expert evidence is likely to be an overview of the legal and regulatory framework governing public procurement, and how it operated during the pandemic.
Other areas may be identified and explored as the Inquiry’s work continues.
A number of CPs in their submissions have made suggestions about areas of potential expert evidence for Module 5, and these will be given careful consideration. The identities of instructed experts will be contained in a solicitor to the Inquiry’s update notes, once experts are instructed, these notes will also provide further details of the topics which the experts will address in their reports, thereby enabling CPs to comment on those matters should they wish to do so.
I now move on to the topic of disclosure. In common with the approach taken in previous modules, Module 5 will adopt the following approach to disclosure. All CPs will receive all documents disclosed in Module 5, not just those documents relevant to them. Disclosure will be subject to three things: first, a relevance review so that only relevant documents are disclosed; second, a de-duplication exercise; third, redactions in accordance with the Inquiry’s redactions protocol. A significant teams of solicitors, barristers, and paralegals is already in place to review for relevance the material that is received.
Disclosure is likely to be in tranches made on a rolling basis. Disclosure will be made via the electronic data management and disclosure system, Relativity. Disclosure updates will be provided by the Module 5 solicitors team informing CPs of the progress which has been made in obtaining relevant documents. We will of course also provide these at the next preliminary hearing.
The Inquiry is working to begin the process of disclosing materials to CPs as soon as possible, which is a matter a number of CPs raise in their submissions: the issue of timely disclosure to ensure effective preparation.
The process of disclosure to CPs is anticipated to begin in late spring of 2024, this year. Each document provider is being asked to provide, amongst other matters, details of the key individuals who were involved in issues relevant to the Module 5, provisional outline of scope, the key meetings and a summary categories of other material held and/or already provided to the Inquiry relating to the Module 5 provisional outline of scope. This information will allow the Inquiry to understand the nature of relevant material held by the document provider and make targeted requests for further material if necessary.
Where, as a result of the information provided, the Inquiry has any concerns about a provider’s processes for providing relevant documents, it will raise and pursue them, and of course, as documents are reviewed and gaps identified, further documents may be sought.
And of course, my Lady, you also have the power to compel the production of documents under section 21 of the Inquiries Act. And there are provisions in section 35 of the Inquiries Act, which make it an offence, during the course of an inquiry, for a person to do anything to alter or distort a relevant document or prevent any relevant document being produced to the Inquiry, or to intentionally destroy, suppress, or conceal a relevant document.
My Lady, I now move on to the listening exercise, Every Story Matters. Every Story Matters is the name given to the Inquiry’s listening exercise. My Lady, the Inquiry’s terms of reference make clear that although the Inquiry will not investigate individual cases of harm or death in detail, listening to the accounts and experiences of the bereaved families and others who suffered hardship or loss will inform the Inquiry’s understanding of the impact of the pandemic and the response and of the lessons to be learned.
Every Story Matters is, therefore, the process by which the public can contribute to the Inquiry so that it will be able not just to hear the voices of the people of the UK and to reflect upon their experiences, but also to incorporate the emerging themes into its work.
Everyone’s contribution through Every Story Matters will be analysed and turned into themed reports which will be submitted into each relevant investigation. These reports will be anonymised, disclosed to the Inquiry’s CPs and used in evidence. The reports will identify trends and themes and include illustrative case studies which may demonstrate systemic failures.
Every Story Matters aims to obtain insights and information from anyone who wishes to contribute, that is from anyone who was impacted by the pandemic and wishes to share their experience. It has been designed so that anyone and everyone in the UK who is aged 18 or older can contribute if they wish to do so.
There are different ways for people to share their experience of the pandemic with the Inquiry. This can be done via our web form, a variety of alternative formats including Easy Read and paper forms or through community listening events around the country.
These experiences will be analysed and reviewed by the Inquiry’s research specialists based on the key lines of inquiry, or KLOEs for Every Story Matters, produced by the Inquiry team.
The KLOEs are an important tool for setting out the way in which the Inquiry will gather and analyse experiences shared with Every Story Matters, in particular through the targeted research.
The Inquiry’s research specialists are exploring the opportunity to conduct targeted, qualitative research in relation to particular topics and particular groups of people based on the KLOEs. An example of Module 5 targeted research is listening to people with experience of being involved in procurement on the ground, in order to gain an insight into their perspective on the efficacy and suitability of procurement and distribution processes.
The experiences shared with Every Story Matters will be analysed and turned into themed reports. The resulting reports will synthesise and amalgamate individual accounts which will be aligned with and fed into Module 5 and the Inquiry’s later modules. They will be disclosed to CPs. The reports will be formally adduced in evidence so that they can form part of the Inquiry’s written record.
In the coming weeks, the Inquiry team will work with its research specialists to identify potential research questions and priority audience in relation to the following proposed KLOEs:
The challenges and impacts on staff and the settings functions (for example a hospital running its services) of obtaining sufficient lateral flow tests and PPE in: private healthcare settings, community care settings and local authorities.
The impact of procurement decisions on His Majesty’s Government, healthcare settings, community care settings and local authorities on frontline staff. This will include the availability and adequacy of PPE made available, and the impact of changes to technical standards and the availability of lateral flow tests.
The impact of government procurement decisions on hospitals regarding access to ventilators, oxygen and other related medical equipment.
The challenges facing business and suppliers of PPE. This will include their experiences of supplying PPE, the procurement processes set up by His Majesty’s Government, and any views on how this process was managed from their perspective as well as the impact that this had on them.
Potential audience groups proposed for sampling in qualitative interviews include: first, procurement officers within healthcare and community care settings, local authorities, and healthcare businesses working adjacent to the NHS such as private ambulance services; second, frontline staff working within healthcare and community care settings, local authorities, and healthcare businesses working adjacent to the NHS; and third, businesses who either offered to supply PPE or who were awarded contracts for the supply of PPE.
It is unlikely that the targeted research will be able to cover all of the areas I have listed, and CPs were invited to file written submissions making suggestions in relation to the KLOEs for targeted, qualitative research, in particular, on:
Whether there were any specific areas which I have listed that CPs consider to be of particular importance for targeted research.
Whether there were any further topics that CPs consider important for targeted research, and why, including whether or not this evidence could otherwise be obtained through the Rule 9 process or by another method.
And third, any views on the proposed target populations for the targeted research, either in relation to the above three topics or further proposed topics.
The Inquiry is grateful for the submissions it has received from CPs in relation to these matters. They will be reviewed in detail by the Inquiry team, and will help inform the work on the KLOEs. It’s right to note that the ESM listening exercise, including its targeted research which focuses on specific groups, is but one part of the Inquiry’s broader consideration of the experiences of groups and individuals impacted by the matters falling within the scope of the provisional outlines of Module 5.
The experiences of many more groups and individuals from a larger range of different communities and backgrounds will be collected by means of the accounts offered to the Inquiry through its Rule 9 investigatory powers. We will provide more information about the process of gathering and analysing information obtained through Every Story Matters shortly.
My Lady, on commemoration.
My Lady, you have made clear your wish to recognise the very real and human suffering arising from the pandemic by ensuring that it is properly taken into account and reflected in the Inquiry’s work. As you know, the Inquiry is producing a series of impact films, the first of which was screened at the first Module 1 public hearing in June, and has used images and artwork to try to represent elements of the loss and suffering caused by the pandemic to the people of the UK.
Such was the scale of the tragedy, the grief and loss suffered by the bereaved, and the lasting effect of the pandemic on the lives of so many millions of people, that no amount of commemorative activity could adequately represent the depth of suffering experienced by so many. However, the Inquiry remains committed to the voices of those most impacted by the pandemic and to continuing to deliver commemorative activity that recognises the scale of this tragedy, and the effect it had, and continues to have, on people’s lives.
There will be a new impact film played at the start of Module 5. These films are a powerful means of reminding ourselves of the impact of a pandemic, and although they do not strictly constitute evidence, they help to ground proceedings in the lived experience of those who have suffered hardship and loss.
My Lady, directions and other matters next. I turn to address you on some specific points raised in the written submissions provided by CPs. In their joint submissions, Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK and Northern Ireland Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice express a desire to be included in the process of selection of witnesses and experts. They revisit the issue of Rule 9 requests first made in submissions in module one and repeated submissions in Module 2, namely by asking that the requests themselves be shared with core participants.
My Lady, you have already decided this matter in previous modules and no reason has been advanced as to why a different approach should be taken in respect of this one.
They also ask you to require state and organisational CPs and material providers to serve position statements.
In light of the pressure on both the resources and time of CPs, and material providers involved in consecutive live modules of this Inquiry, your Ladyship may consider that the previous rationale for not requiring such position statements, namely that such CPs are already being asked to provide corporate statements, which serve a sufficiently similar purpose, still holds good.
They further raise the possibility of matters which are currently the subject of criminal investigations being included in the Inquiry’s work on Module 5. They ask for details as to how the Inquiry intends to approach such material and its disclosure, and express the desire for ongoing liaison in relation to such material.
The module’s work is at an early stage in this regard but the Inquiry will engage with the appropriate authorities in order to understand what investigations or prosecutions are under way or have been completed in relation to contracts awarded for items covered by the provisional outline of scope for Module 5. Updates will be provided to CPs in due course.
Furthermore, they raise the prospect of potential undertakings from the Attorney General in respect of potential witnesses or CPs. They make clear that should such an undertaking be sought, the CBFFJ UK and Northern Ireland CBFFJ would oppose this. The Inquiry takes note of this.
My Lady, I know that once you have had an opportunity to consider the written submissions and those that are being made orally today, you will publish any appropriate directions in due course.
Moving penultimately now to next dates for Module 5. We will notify core participants when the next preliminary hearing is due to take place, and it will be published on the Inquiry’s website. As you know, my Lady, the current plans are that Module 5 is expected to take place in 2025. Further timetabling details will be provided by way of an update to corporates in due course. These will also be announced on the Inquiry’s website, the hearing will be held at Dorland House in Paddington.
And now finally, my Lady, submissions from core participants. That concludes all of the matters on which I wish to address you on behalf of the Inquiry. A number of core participants wish to address you in the course of this hearing, and so can I now invite you, my Lady, to hear first from Jesse Nicholls, counsel for Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice.
Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Wald.
Just before I call on Mr Nicholls – I’m sorry I should have spotted it earlier – I think there are number of references in your opening comments/observations, Mr Wald about Her Majesty’s Government decision processes, to make it clear, when you said Her Majesty’s Government, you do intend to include, and we should have made it more precise – I take the blame – we include the governments of the devolved nations, because they also took decisions and had processes.
Mr Wald: That’s quite correct.
Lady Hallett: It’s a point made by Bereaved Cymru, so I think it’s important we make that clear now.
Mr Wald: Thank you very much indeed.
Lady Hallett: Thank you very much.
Mr Nicholls.