Transcript of Module 2B Public Hearing on 12 March 2024.

(10.00 am)

Lady Hallett: Ms Cecil.

Ms Cecil: Indeed, good morning, may I call Minister Morgan, please.

1. Baroness Eluned Morgan

BARONESS ELUNED MORGAN (sworn).

Questions From Counsel to the Inquiry

Ms Cecil: Your name?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: My name is Eluned Morgan.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, and thank you for attending today and assisting the Inquiry.

While you give your evidence today, if you could keep your voice up. If I ask you to pause or slow down it’s because there is a stenographer who is undertaking the note for the Inquiry, and also your voice needs to be clearly received by the microphone because there is a recording.

If I ask you anything that is not clear, please just ask me to repeat it or rephrase it and of course I will do so.

If I could just ask for your witness statement, please, to be pulled up on the screen for one moment.

INQ000371645.

You signed this statement on 14 December of last year. Is it true to the best of your knowledge and recollection?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: It is.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. I will touch today on a number of topics but you will also be aware that the Inquiry has your written statement and indeed the other documents and exhibits that you provided to the Inquiry, and that will form part of the evidence in due course.

If I may begin, firstly, by touching upon your professional background and indeed the roles you played in the pandemic.

First of all, if I may, in terms of the background, from November 2017 to December 2018 you served as Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning; is that right?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That’s right.

Counsel Inquiry: From 2018 to October 2020 you were the Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language. Then from October 2020 to May 2021 you were the Minister for Mental Health, Wellbeing and the Welsh Language.

You will appreciate that it is your roles in the more recent, those last two ministerial roles, that we are interested in today.

If I can begin, therefore, by looking at the January to October of 2020 period, that was when you were the Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language.

I understand that you wish to say a few words in relation to your ministerial responsibilities with regard to the Welsh language in Welsh. Would you like to do so now, Minister?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: (Interpreted): Thank you.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide evidence for this. I know that many people are anxious to get replies to questions as a result of what all we went through, as a country, as a result of Covid.

As you heard, I changed my role during the pandemic on several occasions. In the first place I was responsible for international affairs and the Welsh language; obviously much of that portfolio closed down during the pandemic, and I spent a lot of that time at the beginning of the pandemic helping my deputy, who was responsible for culture, tourism, and of course there was nobody to take responsibility for hospitality, so I stepped into that role. I spent a lot of my time on that.

As you outlined, I spent time then from October as a minister for mental health and welfare, and then in May I took over as Minister for Health and Social Services.

I think it’s fair also to say I still – I’m still in that role. I don’t think many people who were in that role as health minister who’s still in role today. And to me the pandemic isn’t over. We hope that – over the next few days to give the 10 million of vaccinations. There are still waves of Covid affecting us in the NHS. A few weeks ago, with the latest data, there were 10 deaths as a result of Covid. That’s in the context of about 700 people per week who have died. We’re dealing with Long Covid. So there are lots of things where we’re still dealing with Covid, and that’s part of my responsibility to date.

Counsel Inquiry: What I wish to do is to take you back, if I may, to the beginning of the pandemic, and your role in Welsh Government or – decision-making.

You were a member of Welsh Cabinet; that’s correct, isn’t it?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: It is.

Counsel Inquiry: We’ve heard evidence already from Vaughan Gething that decisions taken by Cabinet were collective decisions?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: They were.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed.

In addition to attending those Cabinet meetings, you also attended daily ministerial calls.

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Mm-hmm.

Counsel Inquiry: Those were the ones that were first instigated in early April until June of 2020. You were engaged in the group known as the Star Chamber, and indeed we’re going to be hearing more about that from Rebecca Evans, the minister for finance, later this morning. Then also the weekly core Covid-19 group that we’ve also heard a little bit of evidence in relation to.

Upon taking up your role as Minister for Health and Social Services in May of 2021, you then began to attend the weekly meetings of the Covid update group; is that correct?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: And that was with the First Minister, the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, Dr Atherton, and Andrew Goodall?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: We will touch upon those as we move through.

First of all, if I may, as I say, take you back to that beginning period and January to March of 2020, so the period leading up to the first national lockdown.

With regard to your awareness of Covid-19, and the first case of Covid-19 within the UK, am I right that that came to your attention on around 29 January?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: So the first case of Covid in the UK, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. And when it came to Wales, the first case was approximately a month later, 28 February?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Although you were not responsible or, indeed, involved, as I understand it, in the Welsh Government’s preparedness plans, did you believe at that point, at the end of February, that it would be possible to trace and control those isolated cases, essentially containment?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Well, I think there was – I think at the time there was an effort to do that. Whether we’d have been successful I’m not sure, but at the time there was an effort to contain it. But at that point we didn’t have any cases in Wales until 28 February.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed.

Now, following on from 28 February, you’ve also described in your witness statement how, for you, St David’s Day, 1 March, was a key and critical time because of your role as Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language.

So we’ve had the first case in Wales on 28 February, you then make during that period, or over that period, two international trips; is that right?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Well, one was – took place before that first case, so from – I was out –

Counsel Inquiry: 23 February –

Baroness Eluned Morgan: 23 February. I think this was quite important, in the sense that we’d just come out of Brexit, my chief responsibility was to make sure we had very close relationships internationally, St David’s Day is a key time for us to go and beat the drum for Wales abroad, and so that was something that I carried out. So I missed the first Cabinet meeting where Covid was discussed.

Counsel Inquiry: In terms of 23 February, did you consider at that point Covid to be a real threat to either the UK or, more specifically, Wales?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: On 23 February, I don’t think I did at that point, no.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, and that’s where you undertook the overseas trips to Canada and the United States.

You then returned at the beginning of March, indeed St David’s Day, as I understand it, and then you made a second trip to Ireland, on 11 March.

Now, this obviously postdated that first case of Covid-19 in Wales. At that point did you again see Covid-19 as being a significant threat to either the UK or Wales specifically?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think even at that point we hadn’t realised quite how much of a threat it was. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office were not suggesting that people didn’t travel abroad at that time, so, again, this was a key relationship for me to go and make sure that we had very strong relationships with our Irish counterparts, our nearest neighbours, straight after Brexit.

Counsel Inquiry: And in terms of your state of knowledge with regard to Covid-19 around that period of time, so up until around 11 March, that week that followed, how well did you understand the threat to be, yourself personally?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think I started to understand how serious the threat was on my return from Ireland. Clearly that was the week when there was a lot of discussion about whether the rugby should go ahead, but on 11 March, you know, we were still suggesting – the rugby was still supposed to be taking place a few days subsequent to that.

Counsel Inquiry: Do you consider that the Welsh Government was slow to recognise the serious public health threat that Covid presented at that point?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think if we had our time again, we … we recognise that we probably should have been making earlier preparations.

Counsel Inquiry: Now turning, if I may, to the lockdown itself, you explain within your witness statement, it’s at paragraph 65, if that assists, page 16, that Covid was widespread in Wales by the middle of March of 2020, and you note that had there not been a lockdown at that point, the impact would have been – on “hospitals and public services would have been overwhelming and many more people would have died”.

Just dealing with the timing of that lockdown, firstly, do you consider that lockdown ought to have been earlier than when it was instituted and could Wales have done that in advance of the UK Government’s decision?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Well, at the time, it was very late when we realised that the Welsh Government would have responsibility effectively for being able – for managing how we responded to the pandemic. I think there was an assumption that it would have come under civil contingencies. So I think also there has to be an awareness that in Wales lots of people get their information from the UK press, and for us to have initiated something prior to England would have been very difficult, I think.

So, in retrospect, I think there’s an agreement across the United Kingdom that, given our time again, we would have gone into lockdown slightly earlier.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Just dealing with the assumption that you refer to in relation to the Civil Contingencies Act, were there any attempts by you or the Welsh Government to ascertain how the pandemic would be dealt with in terms of a lockdown or the use of NPIs, and whether it would indeed be through the Civil Contingencies Act or Wales utilising its own devolved powers?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Well, I think that was very much more in the space of the health minister’s responsibility at the time, so that was not something that I became involved with.

Lady Hallett: When you say given your time again, could have locked down slightly earlier, do you want to give any timing on it? Some people have talked about a week earlier, some two weeks earlier. Are you talking about days earlier?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think it’s very difficult without the data. Obviously with the benefit of hindsight I think in all cases there were opportun – there … we would have – we would have done something perhaps a week earlier.

Lady Hallett: Thank you.

Ms Cecil: Moving through March, if I can bring up, please, a WhatsApp message that you sent in the Welsh ministerial WhatsApp group, what you have to say there is in relation to the position in Wales, and you’ve explained that Covid-19 was fairly widespread at this stage, and we see that the message is dated on 21 March and you’re sending a message saying:

“We really need to stop people from coming to Wales on holidays. Two bus loads of pensioners arrived in St Davids on Friday.”

Firstly, obviously, you were expressing some level of concern in relation to presumably tourists visiting; is that right?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Mm-hm.

Counsel Inquiry: The following day, on 22 March, you sent a further message, this time to the First Minister, reading:

“Mark …”

It’s INQ000376650.

“Mark, Tenby is full of visitors and the Daily Mail is recommending the Welsh wilderness as a place to escape. I have been asking for a statement on this since Thursday. Please can we discourage people from coming.”

You explain the health board is very – “extremely concerned” about that.

We then see the reply which explain:

“We are meeting later today to receive reports from local authorities and health boards, and to get legal advice on powers available to us to act.

“Of course we are discouraging people from travelling, as we have been since the start. We will issue advice to caravan park owners, as fast as possible. Thereafter, or ability to do more than advise and Discourage depends entirely on our legal powers to do so.”

It continues – I’m afraid it’s cut off on this one, but it continues, just so that we have the complete picture, to say:

“We will know more about that by the end of the day. I will be talking to Nicola Sturgeon about the approach they are taking in Scotland. Thanks, Mark.”

Two questions, if I may, that arise or two issues that arise from that.

The first relates to the response by the First Minister. To place this in context for you, on 20 March the First Minister had used devolved powers to close restaurants, bars and cinemas, but with what we see here is a further reference to getting legal advice on the powers available to act.

At this point, is it the position that the Welsh Government were not clear whether they had the legal power to prevent people travelling into Wales?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Well, that’s certainly what the text suggests. I think it’s probably worth emphasising on 16 March there had already been a requirement for people to not undertake unnecessary travel, and what was clear is that people were not adhering to that. I think I was supersensitive to this, because I live in St Davids in Pembrokeshire, where there’s a huge number of visitors, and they were still streaming in at that point, which is why it was something that I was particularly keen to look at.

But yes, in relation to the legal powers, the text from the First Minister suggests that we were still looking for our ability to enforce it. We – it’s not just about being able to make a statement, it’s about our ability to make sure that people actually follow through on what we’ve asked them to do.

Counsel Inquiry: Firstly, it’s unclear what legal powers were available to stop it and, secondly, what legal powers were, therefore, available to enforce it. So at that point the Welsh Government were not clear as to either set of those powers; is that – that’s a summary of what you’ve just explained –

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That seems to be the suggestion from the text.

Counsel Inquiry: The second matter that really arises from that is that you are making it plain that you’ve been calling for a statement to be put out to try to stop people coming, and that statement you had been requesting since at least Thursday 19 March, a few days prior.

Firstly, in relation to that, do you think that firstly getting that message out even on 19 March was too late?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Well, there had already been a requirement for people to not undertake unnecessary travel from 16 March, so this was reinforcing a statement that had already been made.

Counsel Inquiry: But just dealing with that secondly, did you have concerns that your concerns were not being acted upon? In short, that you had requested a statement and yet that still had not been undertaken, given everything you were seeing about people flooding into your – even into the area that you lived?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I was really aware that, by this time, the Welsh Government was in full swing in terms of trying to mitigate against some of the worst effects that may be coming our way, and so I think they were firing on all cylinders. This might have been one of those areas where work had already – you know, the announcement had been made. It was reinforcing an announcement that I was looking for.

Counsel Inquiry: But obviously it’s a message that you are sending saying “I have been asking for a statement on this since Thursday”. It was something that you considered to be of fairly significant importance. Do you consider the First Minister was taking it as seriously as you were at that point?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think the First Minister was taking it seriously, but I think he had a huge number of other issues that he had to consider at the same time.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I now want to ask you about international relations and communications that you had within your role as minister for international relations, again around this time.

To place it in context, you attended the UK governmental ministerial international Covid response meetings. Those were chaired by the foreign and Commonwealth minister at the time. How regular were those meetings?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: They weren’t very regular, they were quite sporadic, they – we didn’t have much warning in terms of paperwork. Quite often there wasn’t even a very clear agenda. I did get a sense that they were just responding almost to some of the questions coming up.

There was a lot of work initially in relation to repatriation of citizens who were stuck abroad. There was some general talk about vaccination and, when that would be developed, whether it would be available to developing countries.

I kept on asking for information from them to see if we could learn from other countries in terms of what they were doing and what lessons we could learn. That wasn’t forthcoming, so I commissioned work from our own international offices to – for them to undertake some work to see what we could learn from what countries had done abroad, in particular later on when it came to re-opening after – after the end of lockdown.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. Just picking up on what you’ve explained there, do you know why the information you requested was not forthcoming from the FCO at that point?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I don’t know why it wasn’t forthcoming, no.

Lady Hallett: Was it necessarily the right source? I’m wondering whether – would it have been the FCDO or would it have been scientists working in a different group? I’m just wondering whether it was the right …

Baroness Eluned Morgan: It might have been, but it was the only forum I had access to, so why wouldn’t I ask the question within that forum.

Lady Hallett: I understand. Yes.

Baroness Eluned Morgan: So I think it would have been up – should have been up to the FCO then to go and ask the scientists. Our scientists also, later on, did some of that international work as well, but I guess right at the beginning of the pandemic, you know, the international relations portfolio was clearly not an area – and it’s a reserved area, so already, you know, there are limitations on how much we can do within that – that portfolio.

So I was – I was looking for work. I was looking for ways to contribute to what I knew to be a very serious situation. I thought this may be a way that I could contribute through the networks that I had on my availability.

Ms Cecil: Indeed, you do mention also within your statement that you were not always sighted on all available information at UK level in relation to these meetings, you also refer to PPE procurement and distribution. Other evidence that the Inquiry has heard indicates that DHSC, the Department of Health and Social Care, was fairly involved within that role instead of the FCDO. Was that something that you were aware of, or was there a lack of clarity over which departments were dealing with which issues?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think there was an understanding that that was being led from a different department. The opportunity was for the FCO and for us, in our international offices, to try and do some work within those nations to try to identify if we could get some protective equipment directly from them. If we found sources, then we suggested that they went via our Life Sciences Hub, so that was a very clear method for them to – for the Welsh Government to procure.

Counsel Inquiry: Just dealing then and picking back up on the advice that you commissioned, with regard to that, firstly, was it effective? Was it productive? Did you receive useful information from overseas? And to follow up on that, so that you understand why I’m asking you the question, how did that information then inform Welsh Government decision-making?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think it – I think it was found to be useful. I distributed it to my colleagues across the Cabinet, so that they had it directly, but also I shared it with the Chief Medical Officer. I think one of the areas where it proved particularly useful was in relation to education and how we’d re-open education settings and how learn from how other countries had fared in that area.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Again, just picking up with regard to international approaches, the Inquiry has heard from Dr Roland Salmon in relation to advocating for an approach that more closely resembled the Swedish response to the pandemic. Is that a matter that at that point you considered, or at any point during the pandemic?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: It wasn’t a serious consideration by the Welsh Government. I can’t remember us having a conversation around the Swedish model, and we don’t have any offices in Sweden, so we wouldn’t have had any evidence from there. But what we did do, what I did do, was to try to follow up with some of the areas where we have much closer relationships, so, for example, Brittany, conversations with Brittany authorities about how they were planning to open up in relation to tourism, Catalonia, they were telling us about how they were using technology in relation to contact tracing, the Basque Country, New Zealand, so I was trying to do some bilaterals to learn also directly from people, my counterparts in those countries.

Counsel Inquiry: With regard to those bilaterals, those were with countries that Wales had an established relationship with; is that right?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That’s right.

Counsel Inquiry: And you’ve mentioned Brittany, Catalonia, the Basque Country, and there’s a common link with language?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: Overall, what learning did you take away from other countries’ experiences in terms of the easing of the lockdown measures that you’ve already touched upon, and education?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Well, I think there was some learning around things like ventilation, face coverings. There –

Counsel Inquiry: I’ll just pause you there for one moment. Ventilation, do you mean ventilation of buildings as opposed to medical treatment?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Ventilation in terms of buildings, yes, school buildings, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Sorry, face coverings, and were there any other areas?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Those are the areas that really stood out to me as areas where I think it was fed into the education department.

Counsel Inquiry: If I may now turn to government decision-making and the role of medical and scientific advice, please. A theme throughout your witness statement relates to the limitations available – of the data and evidence available to you in the Welsh Government and how that then impacted on the decision-making that you undertook.

If I can bring up, please, paragraph 6, please, of your statement. It’s at page 2. You explain there, approximately halfway down, that:

“The Welsh Government’s leadership was deliberately cautious in its response … in particular where there were recognised limitations in the scientific advice and data … particularly the case when it came to making decisions about easing lockdown restrictions, and that seemed to be a tone which was in keeping and chimed with the majority of people in Wales.”

You continue to explain that often decision-taking was made “without always having as definitive or comprehensive evidence base that, in an ideal world, [you] would have liked”. So in relation to decision-making, when you say it was “deliberately cautious”, do you mean in retaining restrictions for longer?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Before every meeting when we were discussing in the 21-day reviews, we were reminded by the First Minister of the limitations of the legal powers that we had, and one of those is that we should act proportionately, and so we were very aware of that.

I think just in relation to being deliberately cautious, I think if the evidence wasn’t as clear as we’d like, we would err on the side of caution, and I think we were aware that the scientists generally were just one step ahead of us on the information that we were being given.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Just comparatively, the Inquiry has heard evidence that the general pattern in relation to the easing of restrictions, which is what we’re discussing, was that England and Northern Ireland would ease restrictions and they re-opened the economy first, followed by Scotland and then Wales. Is that right?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That’s my understanding. I don’t think any of it was deliberate, in terms of us comparing ourselves with others. We were trying to do what was right for Wales. And that cautious approach seemed to chime with the people of Wales as well.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. And that follows – that perhaps answers my next question to some extent, which is why you think it was that it followed that pattern generally. You’ve explained that you were taking, as far as you were concerned and the Welsh Government, decisions that were right for Wales, but more generally why do you think that that followed that pattern, that Wales would typically be the last one to re-open or ease those restrictions?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I don’t think it was a deliberate decision to do it in comparison to any other countries. We were doing what was right for our nation. We were looking at the data, looking at the evidence, looking at the spread, looking at the ability of the NHS to cope, so those were the things that were determining our – our decision-making.

And it wasn’t just about that, we were also trying to make sure that we had a balanced approach. We knew that lockdown was affecting people emotionally, economically, physically, and so we – we had to balance the public health requirements with all of those other requirements.

Counsel Inquiry: With regard to the Cabinet decision-making, a large number of those papers clearly demonstrate that data, scientific data and modelling formed a substantial part of those discussions, and indeed was given considerable weight when it came to making the decisions in relation to the NPIs and relaxation.

Picking up on the point of balance, do you consider that other harms, such as the ones you’ve just identified, from non-Covid related illness, another one, and socioeconomic and other societal harms, were also afforded equal weight or given proper consideration when making those decisions about NPIs?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think we did try to make those decisions in the round, but I think there was also an understanding that if you didn’t bring Covid under control, then it would have an impact on the economy. So we didn’t – we thought that the link was very strong of one with another. So we – I think, in terms of the balance, we were very aware that the public health requirements was something that we should consider, on balance, probably very seriously, compared to some of the other areas that we were also concerned about, like the emotional wellbeing, the economic wellbeing of the nation.

Counsel Inquiry: You were clearly receiving a significant amount of scientific advice and datasets. Do you consider that you were equally served with respect to inputs in relation to those other societal harms? Were you receiving similar like advice?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think we were. I mean, just if you look at the scientific advice, we had – the Technical Advisory Cell were giving us very comprehensive information, perhaps 20 pages, before every 21-day reviews, we had the KAS information, we had the information, a statement from the Chief Medical Officer, prior to every 21-day review. We had the SAIL database, which was giving us that modelling that tried to project what would happen in future. The NHS also told us what the situation was. But then on top of that, we did have feedback in terms of, you know, the impact assessments, we had equality impact assessments, we had extensive conversations with our social partners and with economic partners as well.

So it wasn’t just one aspect that we were looking at; we had evidence from all of those. And one of the things that we did very carefully and very seriously was to have really comprehensive discussions with our stakeholders before we implemented any changes.

So, you know, they made it very clear to us, particularly in my dealings, for example, in relation to opening hospitality, you know, how difficult it was for us, for them, and how practically we could open whilst – whilst protecting people and trying to mitigate the possibilities for the virus to spread.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I want to move now, if I may, to the use of wastewater sampling, wastewater sampling having been used throughout the pandemic in Wales as one of the primary surveillance methods in relation to tracking the virus; is that right?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That’s right.

Counsel Inquiry: Again, that was a scheme that was led by Bangor University, it had Welsh Government funding, included Cardiff University, Public Health Wales and Welsh Water.

Can you just briefly explain how wastewater sampling was used by the Welsh Government in its decision-making in relation to NPIs.

Baroness Eluned Morgan: So there are about 48 places where samples were taken from waste water, and that gave us insight into about 80% of the population of Wales, so we got a really good coverage. And the real benefit of this is that it didn’t depend on how much testing was happening within the communities.

What was interesting initially, because this was quite a new science, was actually comparing it with the ONS data, and it did seem to track the ONS data, but the difference was that actually this was very much real time, but also gave us an insight into what kind of variants were circulating in Wales. So we had early sight of when Omicron had hit, but it wasn’t just about Omicron, we can see lots of other things within that waste water.

It was helpful, I think, more than anything, in giving us the confidence of when we could relax some of the – some of the restrictions, because we could note where, across the whole of Wales, the virus was at its peak. So we knew it was coming down so we could relax with a bit more confidence.

Counsel Inquiry: So you could monitor the decrease, effectively, through the wastewater sampling –

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Exactly.

Counsel Inquiry: – localised sampling also gave you some insight into the regional variations and indeed, as you say, the various different variants?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Absolutely. So, you know, just to give you an example, later on when the Omicron variants hit, you know, there was a huge peak in terms of the number of cases but it came down very, very quickly which meant that we were able to relax some of the conditions around – during that time, because we were confident because we had the readings from the waste water.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed.

Then plainly it was something – a very useful tool, and valuable tool in your view. It’s the Inquiry’s understanding that the scheme was ended last August, and so no longer continues. Is that correct?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: So this was really difficult for us. We are massively challenged financially in relation to the two NHS budgets, and we’ve had to make some really, really difficult decisions. You know, this is not a cheap way of monitoring, so – I think we’d spent about £5 million on it – so, with real reluctance, we did switch that off. But then actually we were concerned at the beginning of December that there may be a new variant, and I was really concerned that we didn’t have the kind of monitoring, so we’ve actually switched it back on now, but obviously not with quite the same ability to monitor as we did before because we haven’t put as much investment into it.

But I just think it’s quite – it’s worth remembering that even the tools that we have, that we found really useful, have to be balanced against the day-to-day activity that we have to provide to the public of Wales in terms of serving them and the NHS.

Counsel Inquiry: So at the moment it is currently operating –

Baroness Eluned Morgan: It is –

Counsel Inquiry: – limited degree, is that –

Baroness Eluned Morgan: It is, exactly.

Counsel Inquiry: Following on from that, is it ready and available, therefore, to be stood up in the event of a future pandemic?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: We could do that, but obviously there’s a danger, because you need to make sure that you’ve got the scientists, and once you lose the scientists, then obviously that’s more difficult to switch on. But there is now a clear skeleton system that we can build up.

Counsel Inquiry: And potential standing capacity?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That’s right.

Counsel Inquiry: Just if I may now turn to the Welsh language.

And I appreciate again, Chair, this is a position whereby we may switch to the Welsh language. So could I ask that everybody utilises their headphones that needs to.

Just in relation, please, to the impact upon the Welsh language, the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee considered the impact of Covid-19 on those speaking the Welsh language, there’s a report that was published in December of 2020.

And that can be found at INQ000066501.

But in short, the report made six recommendations.

The need to reinstate budgets for support in promoting the Welsh language, because of reallocation during the response.

The need to promote the Welsh language in the post-pandemic economic recovery plan.

And the need to update the digital Welsh language strategy.

Just focusing on those three for a moment, have those recommendations been implemented?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Sorry, I …

(Interpreted): I’ll just change to Welsh. I will answer in Welsh. Is that okay? I will answer this in Welsh.

Obviously the money has gone back to the budgets, certainly in terms of technology, we are very aware that working with technology has become an exceptionally important part of all our lives, and it’s incredibly important to understand how that can help us with the language, and one of the elements that became apparent within the Covid was millions of people were try – starting learning the Welsh language online, which was something quite novel really. And those recommendations have been taken seriously.

Can I also say on a more general point relating to the Welsh language, about 440,000 people speak Welsh, 440,000, sorry, so 17% of the population. So we’ve got our – we’re very keen to get a million speakers by 2050, and one of our concerns …

(In English): I was going to go on to say how Covid had impacted the Welsh language, but that’s fine.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, you set out in any event within your witness statement the impact of it, but more broadly the report sets it out in some detail, including those recommendations, and my focus was, as a consequence, predominantly on those recommendations, to see what had actually been undertaken.

If I may then move to the period of October 2020 to May of 2021, on 9 October you were appointed to a newly created ministerial position, and that was for mental health, wellbeing and the Welsh language. That was, as I understand it, specifically created to allow Vaughan Gething, in his role as Minister for Health and Social Services, to focus on pandemic issues, NHS delivery and performance.

Was the ministerial post created directly as a result of the pandemic and concerns in relation to mental health and wellbeing, or was it a post that had already been considered prior to the pandemic?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That’s a question that you’ll have to make to the First Minister who has responsibility for organising how portfolios are determined.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Given that it was a newly created post with regard to mental health, do you consider, looking back over the period that – in the run-up to October 2020, so January 2020 to October of 2020, that mental health may not have been given enough focus by the Welsh Government over that period?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: No, I don’t accept that. I think that the – well, I know that mental health was always considered an essential service, we take mental health very seriously in Wales, we have a ringfenced allocation for it. But there were concerns that fewer people were being directed to mental health services, we saw that there were more self-referrals. And we very aware that there were people who were struggling, there were people who were dealing with bereavement, there were people who were dealing with financial challenges, and all of these things were having an impact on people’s mental health. We were particularly concerned about young people and a survey was carried out. I think in late October, which suggested that 50% of the people of Wales were concerned about their mental health, and that, when it came to young people, three-quarters of people between the age of 18 and 25 were concerned about their mental health. So it was an issue that we wanted to take very seriously.

We – just before I was appointed, there was a refresh of the Together for Mental Health strategy, which deliberately targeted some additional resources towards supporting people’s mental health, particularly telling people about the CALL Mental Health Helpline, making sure that we gave more resources to the tier 0 and tier 1, which is the kind of third sector support that can be given, making sure that we had cognitive behavioural therapy online, and also reaching out to those communities that perhaps had not reached out for mental health support, including, for example, people from the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.

Schools were also really important to us, so we increased the funding available for mental health in schools. So there were a huge number of areas where we were concerned. And also we were concerned about the mental health of people on the frontline in our health and care services. So we put an extra – we put £1 million into support for them and also for school teachers.

Lady Hallett: You mentioned the mental health of those suffering from bereavement. Was there any specific bereavement support?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: There is a specific bereavement support available for – for people within Wales. If they contacted the CALL Mental Health Helpline, then they would have been directed.

Lady Hallett: During the pandemic?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Yes.

Lady Hallett: So it wasn’t specific to bereavement, it was: if you’re suffering from bereavement, it’s affecting your mental health, then you have to go to the mental health hotline?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Yes.

Ms Cecil: Was it advertised or flagged as being bereavement support or was it simply mental health support?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think it was more mental health support, and I made a point if I ever did the briefings to make sure that everybody had access to the number. So we did make a real effort to try to make sure that people had access to the number.

Lady Hallett: It’s just that a lot of bereaved wouldn’t consider that if they’re going through grief – and the grief during the pandemic, as I’m sure you’ll appreciate, was exacerbated by the circumstances – they wouldn’t consider they were mental health issues, therefore they may not think about contacting a mental health line. They had specific bereavement problems that needed support.

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Yeah.

Lady Hallett: Do you accept that?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I accept that, yes.

Ms Cecil: I now want to turn, if I may, to later in the year in terms of the firebreak. So I’m looking at the autumn period, in short, of 2020, and then the second lockdown.

With regard, firstly, to the timing, do you consider that the firebreak was timely or ought that to have been instituted earlier?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think we were still trying to work out whether the local restrictions were effective. There were parts of Wales where actually the virus wasn’t very strong at the time, so we had to work out at what point the firebreak should be instigated because there were parts of Wales where the rates were very low, and at all times we had to act proportionately, so I think that was something for us to consider as well.

Counsel Inquiry: There has been evidence of scientific and medical advice from both the CMO and the CSA, so Dr Atherton, Dr Orford, that ultimately NPIs action should have been taken sooner and for longer, and indeed, in relation to the local health protection areas, the First Minister has described those, such as in Llanelli, as a failed experiment. Do you agree with that?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Well, they clearly didn’t work, which was why we needed to go into a firebreak. So I think we were all learning at this point, they were still very much a tool that was being used in England. We had our first, kind of, local lockdown in Caerphilly on 8 September and we were still putting – starting to put some local authorities in at the start of October, so we were still putting them in in October.

So it’s difficult to say, if we’d have gone earlier, we hadn’t actually tested them out much prior to that event, and by 15 October we had an agreement in principle to go into a firebreak.

Counsel Inquiry: Now, in relation to looking at the rest of the UK and the NPIs that were being undertaken at that point, were you aware that in relation to the localised tier system that was in place across England, that the scientific advice was that those measures would simply not be enough? Were you aware of that?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I was aware of that on 15 October when we had the discussion in Cabinet. I don’t think I was aware before that, because I remember very clearly that I think we were told that Sir Patrick Vallance had suggested that that should be what we were doing. I don’t think I’d heard it prior to that.

Counsel Inquiry: When you say that Sir Patrick Vallance had suggested that that was what you should have been doing, what measures are you referring to?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: To the introduction of a firebreak.

Counsel Inquiry: Firebreak. That was the first time that you were aware of that advice?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think that was the first time I was aware of that advice.

Counsel Inquiry: Looking back now, do you consider that different decisions should have been taken throughout September and October of 2020?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: At the time, I think us going into a firebreak before England was quite a brave decision. We were still not sure whether the Welsh public would follow us. This – you know, going into a lockdown at the same time, on 23 March, we went in together. We came out more slowly. Would they follow us, going into winter, a difficult time, into another lockdown? And obviously we were really concerned about the financial ability – of the firepower of the Welsh Government at the time to be able to sustain a lockdown for as long as was necessary. And I think the scientists were suggesting that we should be doing it for three weeks and I think we didn’t have the economic power to maintain a three-week firebreak.

And, you know, it was really disappointing that the UK Government did not – was not forthcoming in terms of financial support. And then two weeks later, when they wanted to go into a firebreak, they suddenly announced a very different approach. And I think that was a very difficult time for us as a nation, because there were – I think people felt like we were second-class citizens in the context of the UK Government. What was suitable for them was not suitable for us two weeks earlier, and I think that was a huge disappointment to us.

Lady Hallett: I think I need to point out there is another side to that debate. I have heard evidence that suggests the UK Government weren’t taking that approach, but I think I’ll just put that on record at this stage.

Ms Cecil: Indeed.

Then of course there is other evidence before the Inquiry.

May I also just touch upon some aspects within your witness statement, because you suggest in your witness statement that actually a big factor in limiting the firebreak to two weeks as opposed to three was actually not financial but was to balance the harms of not locking down against the harms of locking down, effectively with one eye, for example, on people’s mental health and other implications and repercussions.

So with regard to that aspect, was that a primary factor, as far as you were concerned, in limiting it to two weeks as opposed to three weeks?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think what was more important for me is that we were very clear that it would be a short period of time. So I was very concerned about people’s mental health, going into a cold, dark winter, so locking down then was very different from locking down going into spring. So for me the most important factor was to manage expectations, whether that was around two weeks or three weeks.

I think it was more the economic argument and concerns that led us to have the two-week restriction rather than three weeks.

Counsel Inquiry: Just dealing, if I may, with the timing of that decision, a firebreak was agreed to in principle by Cabinet on 15 October, due to start and commence on 23 October, but that in-principle decision was not formally approved until 19 October, so effectively it took those four days to actually make that decision into a formal decision.

Am I right that the delay there was because you say there was insufficient information to make a fully informed decision at that point, that you wanted further advice on risks of transmission from schoolchildren?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Yep, so that was a consideration. We wanted to be clear whether there was a greater risk of having children in unregulated environments, where they’d be mixing, rather than a regulated environment, in relation to being in school. So we wanted further advice on that, and that advice was forthcoming. So I think – 15 October was a Thursday, and clearly people must have worked very hard over the weekend to give us that advice, which was given to us on the following Monday.

Counsel Inquiry: But overall, given that advice had been received as early as mid-September that a circuit-breaker was needed and would be most effectively implemented early and deeply – and I’m sure you’ve heard more broadly the evidence in relation to interventions being early, deeper, harder – do you consider the delay in implementing a circuit-breaker in Wales to be justified?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I do think that we can justify the circuit-breaker in Wales.

Counsel Inquiry: The delay. Not the circuit-breaker but the delay –

Baroness Eluned Morgan: The delay –

Counsel Inquiry: Taking it from the initial advice, in mid-September, all the way through until 23 October?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: One of the considerations was about the half term holiday and whether that would help or hinder the spread of the virus, so that was the area that we wanted more advice on, which is why I think there was a greater delay.

Counsel Inquiry: Is your evidence, therefore, that the delay is justified by the need for further advice, as opposed to being in receipt of that scientific advice, as I say, in mid-September?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: In retrospect, we probably should have gone a week earlier and should have gone for longer, but there were reasons why that wasn’t the case.

Counsel Inquiry: Now if I may turn to slightly later in the chronology and look at Omicron, and bring us back into summer of 2021 into winter of 2021.

Can I ask for [INQ000388561], please.

This is in relation to 14 July 2021. This is a few months after you became the Minister for Health and Social Services. There is a Covid-O meeting about relaxing inbound border health measures for vaccinated travellers and that same day we see you texting Ms Jenkins and saying:

“On covid O. We are all fucked!!”

What prompted that text?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Can I first apologise for my fruity language, I don’t think that’s going to go down very well with my husband, who’s a priest. And being a vicar’s daughter, that’s probably not what you want to see.

But this was quite early on after my appointment, so on this particular Covid-O, there were some very interesting discussions, there was a suggestion that we should be opening up our borders to travellers coming from France and the introduction of a pilot programme where we would recognise vaccination certificates from France and allow travel to recommence. But on the same day there was a discussion in a different Covid-O about whether France should be put onto the red list. So I just found that a massive contradiction and very, very worrying.

There was also the issue about whether we should allow visitors to come from the United States and whether we should recognise their vaccination certificates. I think they had a certificate called the CDC, and it was made very clear on Covid-O that there was real opportunity for fraud in relation to the use of the CDC. So, again, that was something that concerned me.

The third thing was that there was a very clear concern on that meeting that the Border Force services were not ready for the kind of ramp-up so there was no operational problems.

So I think that was the context in which I was making that very fruity remark.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I’m now going to go into winter, and that’s when, of course, Omicron first emerged. We don’t need to turn to it, but the First Minister for Wales and the First Minister for Scotland wrote a joint letter to the Prime Minister on 29 November in relation to the risks posed by Omicron.

On 27 November, which was also the date incidentally when the first variant of Omicron was identified in the UK, you sent a WhatsApp message to the Northern Irish minister for health, Robin Swann – if I can call that up, please – at INQ000331060, stating:

“We are doomed!”

Then we see a response of:

“mix of that [we’re doomed] and ‘don’t panic’.”

Do you recall what that was in relation to? Was that Omicron?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That was absolutely Omicron. So the first case we’d heard of had been identified in South Africa on 22 November, the first case in the United Kingdom was on 27 November. What we did know is that this was a variant that transmitted very quickly and I was really concerned at this point that we would see some quite considerable peaks as a result of Omicron entering our country.

Counsel Inquiry: You explain that you were very concerned. Was there at that point a fatalistic mindset within the Welsh Government that there was going to be a future wave and more restrictions were necessary, rather than waiting to see what the evidence was or scientific advice was as it unfolded?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: We – there was no fatalism at all. We got onto a very serious footing. We held, I think, four or five Cabinet meetings within a week. We – first of all, we put ten countries on the red list, which meant that they had to go into quarantine, they had to take a test on day 2 and day 8, we brought forward the booster campaign, and we agreed to look at the regulations on a weekly basis because we were so concerned about the changes.

And you referred there to a request by the First Minister to ask for a COBR meeting from – with the UK Government, that I don’t think happened till later.

Counsel Inquiry: If it assists, the COBR took place subsequently, on 10 December.

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Later, later.

Counsel Inquiry: Yeah. And the letter was on 29 November.

You refer in your statement to there being various information gaps at that point in relation to Omicron, including the efficacy of vaccinations, so whether the vaccine would work, and other matters, including the severity, essentially, of the variant.

What decisions do you consider would have been made differently had there not been those information gaps there?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: So we didn’t know about the efficacy of the vaccine and we didn’t know how long the protection was in the people who were vaccinated, so waning, we were very worried about waning, in particular amongst the most vulnerable. So we – as I say, what we did is to bring forward the booster vaccination.

Sorry, did I answer your question properly?

Counsel Inquiry: My question was: which decisions would you have made differently?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I don’t think we would have made many differently. I think you can see from the evidence that I put forward that there was a very concentrated increase in terms of the drumbeat of tightening up the restrictions, so, for example, we made it a legal requirement for people to be able to work from home, we put more guidance in place around what kind of face coverings should be worn. We already had Covid passes that were necessary to go into cinemas and theatres and nightclubs. We encouraged people to use lateral flow tests. So there were a whole series of things that we tightened up ready for what we knew was going to be quite a challenging time.

Counsel Inquiry: If I may ask you, please, about nightclubs, one of the matters that you’ve just mentioned.

And if I could take you to INQ000376661.

You explain about tightening up various restrictions and the Covid passes. Nightclubs were forced to close from 27 December. You’ll appreciate that’s probably one of their busiest times of year, it’s the New Year period.

I just want to deal with your text message here, please, if I may, you say:

“Mark, I am concerned that if we keep nightclubs open we lose our moral authority to ask people to limit contacts. I was hoping that the papers might have given that as an option.”

So was the decision in relation to nightclubs one based essentially on moral authority or perception as opposed to dealing with the scientific advice or evidence in relation to the risks that were posed in such environments, through use of the Covid passes, for example?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: No, I mean, we’d had TAC advice previously, in the previous July, that set out some of the risks around nightclubs, that they were areas where there was a potential for greater spread of the disease, because of loud music and singing – we like to sing in Wales, as you know – the closer interaction, the humidity, the lack of ventilation potentially. So there were all of these things that made them vectors for further transmission. So, you know, I always had a concern around these.

We’d obviously introduced the vaccine certificate on 11 October, so those were already in place, but because we didn’t know at the time whether the vaccines would be effective, then I was really concerned about what the impact might be if we allowed people to gather in great numbers.

Counsel Inquiry: But being clear about this, obviously that was advice from July; by this point, as you’ve explained, you had the vaccination, the Covid passes in place and in play. Your message very clearly speaks about moral authority and limiting of contacts as opposed to any risk. So I’m asking: was that the primary issue for you at that stage, in relation to nightclubs?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: No, I don’t think it was all about moral authority, although I think that it was difficult to ask people to limit their contacts if you were still allowing people to gather in significant numbers.

But there were difficulties around nightclubs. One of them was an issue around the definition, what is a nightclub, because you can have pubs where people can dance and whether that is a nightclub. We were really concerned also about the border issues. So in Cardiff, for example, you’re very close to Bristol, so there was a possibility that people would cross the border. And there’s also the issue of whether you would displace activity into unregulated house parties.

So these were all things that we had to balance in terms of risks. It wasn’t a one-way risk either.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I now want to move to the topic of four nations engagement, if I may, and informal communications.

In summary, you’re complimentary within your witness statement of both health secretaries, Matt Hancock and Sajid Javid, in relation to your interactions with them and communications; is that right, you found them to be productive, fruitful relationships?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I certainly did, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: You explain that you were a member of two WhatsApp groups with the various ministers, the first with Matt Hancock and the other four nations health ministers, and then the second with Sajid Javid.

You do not have either of those chats any more. Why is that?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Those have been deleted, but I do understand that you have got copies of those from other people, so those are available to you. And you’ll see from them that there’s nothing in them that I would consider to be problematic.

Counsel Inquiry: No, my questions are really focused on the failure to retain potentially relevant information that goes to issues of –

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Sure.

Counsel Inquiry: – governmental decision-making.

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: Would you accept that that failure is a shortcoming?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think in terms of decision-making, I can give you an assurance that no decisions were made on WhatsApps. But obviously, you know, I have provided the Inquiry with reams of WhatsApp messages and hundreds of pages of notes, so in terms of transparency, I think, you know, I’ve been almost as transparent as I can be.

I’m sad that I wasn’t – that I don’t have those, but, as I say, you do have the evidence from other people, so you can see what I said.

Counsel Inquiry: Now, Matt Hancock resigned in June 2021 and was replaced by Sajid Javid as the health minister. From 11 December you created a new group for health ministers, with Sajid Javid, inviting him to join. You sent him a message saying “we thought we should set up a new one without Matt Hancock on it!!!”

Does that mean that Matt Hancock was still within your communications, with the –

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I don’t think –

Counsel Inquiry: – earlier group?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I don’t think so, I think we probably – no, I don’t think we – I can’t remember that we communicated a lot during that time. So the reason for setting one up was because we knew we were heading into difficult territory with Omicron.

Counsel Inquiry: Okay.

Dealing then also with other methods and other communication, indeed record-keeping, as you’ve explained you provided various documents to the Inquiry including a notebook. I’d just like to ask you about two of those entries, if I may, please.

It’s INQ000327594, page 8.

And on this page we see, on page 8 of the notebook, and we see two entries, here we are:

“Is Matt Hancock hopeless?”

Then:

“Prime Minister … chaos.”

Doing the best that we can in relation to the dates and looking at the material around it, on 16 June 2021 Dominic Cummings published various text messages between him and the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, in which Boris Johnson referred to Hancock as “totally fucking hopeless”, and in addition he also criticised the Prime Minister, this is Dominic Cummings, for chronic dysfunction, Number 10 lies, and so on and so forth.

In relation to your question, “Is Matt Hancock hopeless?”, firstly, is that a reference to that Dominic Cummings material?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I’m guessing it must have been. I can’t remember, but I’m guessing it must have been, and it would make sense in terms of the timing. But I used these notebooks to – for all kinds of things, and a lot of it was about preparing to, for example, speak to my political colleagues, so clearly it – they would be more political in nature. So it may be – may have been that I was setting this out as something to say to my political group, just to remind me that those were the kind of things that were happening at the time.

Counsel Inquiry: There are similar entries that relate to what appears to be 19 July, Freedom Day, self-isolation and chaos at that point, but the one that I’m next interested in, please, is page 59, you make an entry under the heading “Foreign Travel”. It relates to the Covid-O meeting. And what you say there is that generally – a different page. I can read it to you:

“Generally invited to meetings.

“Have our own analysis [and] access to data so can make own conclusions.

“On this occasion we were not invited.

“–> learnt of English moves via the media.

“Wholly unsatisfactory situation.

“Unapologetic –> not being driven by public health.”

Why was it unsatisfactory that the Welsh Government, if they were, were learning of decisions through the media? Did you raise that with the health minister at the time?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I raised it in several Covid-O meetings. We were being invited very late, we were being given information sometimes minutes before the meetings and, as clearly I’ve stated there, we weren’t even invited to – to that particular meeting.

I do – I am aware that in one meeting I was very concerned that the thing that was driving decisions was actually the economy and, more than that, it was tourism in London and the need to reinstate and to encourage more tourism in London.

And, as I say, quite often on those meetings I was actually a lone voice. So there were occasions when the devolved nations would be in the same position as me, but there were occasions where … where the public health concern was – was being expressed by Wales, and sometimes, to be fair, by the health minister, but they were often out-spoken by the other representatives on the group, which represented the economy and transport and all kinds of other areas. And, you know, that’s allowed, it’s just that the – it’s clear that the majority would come out against the kind of public health position because of the make-up of the people on the committee.

Counsel Inquiry: I just want to now turn to the final topic, if I may, and it’s a theme that we touched upon at the beginning of your evidence, and it relates to the understanding of regulations and the clarity of regulations.

If I can call up INQ000316403.

These are messages with Rebecca Evans in relation to what was and was not allowed. I make it clear it’s not just her, there are other similar types of questions from other individuals such as Kirsty Williams, Lesley Griffiths, Lee Waters and so on, and these are just a handful of examples, but what we see on 5 July 2020, at 11.45.48, for those looking at the screen, she asks:

“Just checking that this remains correct: that people can go to stay at their own static caravans etc from 6th July (but can’t rent them out until 11th). I have had a few queries as the guidance on the website isn’t 100% clear. Many thanks!”

You reply and you say:

“You can’t go and stay in your own static caravan until the 11th. You can go and prepare it if the site manager allows but can’t stay. FAQ on this published on Friday.”

So, in short, you’re correcting your colleague’s understanding; is that a fair characterisation?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think that shows that actually the answer was already public, so there was an invitation there to go and look at the information that was already in the public arena.

Counsel Inquiry: It does show that it was already public but it also shows that individuals within government did not understand or were aware of the own regulations that the government was passing; is that a fair comment?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: We were – we were going through really detailed questions, and there were lots and lots of different aspects to those questions, and if people needed clarity I don’t think there’s a problem with making those situations more clear for people –

Counsel Inquiry: I’ll give you another example.

Page 52, please, it’s 18.37.20, Ms Evans asked:

“Since you’re all here, can children leave the country for swimming lessons?!”

You reply shortly thereafter, at 18.50 – so 6.50 – 01:

“People shouldn’t be crossing county borders to do sport unless they are professionals – including children swimming I’m afraid.”

The point here is, would you agree that members of the public who were being asked to follow these rules may be frustrated that the Welsh Government itself was on occasion confused by the rules, that there was not, in short, clarity over what was and was not allowed?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think the clarity was probably there in the regulations, but quite often people wanted us to read the regulations for them. So the rules were clear, people needed to go and read the rules that were set out and the guidelines that were set out. And we spent a huge amount of time talking to stakeholders about those regulations. So I’m not sure if that’s fair. I think we –

Counsel Inquiry: Sadly –

Baroness Eluned Morgan: – the information was available.

Counsel Inquiry: Sadly it’s clearly a problem, though, if your own ministers and members of government do not simply go, as you say, to public information to find it but need to speak to their colleagues. It’s not a happy situation.

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think they were just trying to take shortcuts to gather information.

Ms Cecil: Chair, those are the questions that I have for you, Minister. There are some further questions.

Lady Hallett: I was hoping to finish you before the break, Baroness Morgan, because I know, as a serving minister, you’ll have other duties. Can you bear if we take a short break now and then come back to finish?

The Witness: Sure.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much. I shall return at 11.35.

(11.20 am)

(A short break)

(11.35 am)

Lady Hallett: Ms Heaven.

Questions From Ms Heaven

Ms Heaven: Thank you.

Good morning, Ms Morgan, I represent the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru.

I appreciate you were only in post in May 2021, but we understand you were a member of the Cabinet, so I just want to ask you if, as part of the Cabinet, you became aware of a letter that came in, a document that was published by the Commissioner for Older People, Helena Herklots, in April 2020.

So if we can have to up INQ000181739, please.

If you can just indicate, my screen’s gone blank – oh, no, there it is.

We know that this was published by Helena Herklots on 15 April because she’s explained to the Inquiry she was so concerned about what was happening in care homes. And just to have a very quick look at it before I ask you whether or not you knew about it at the time, you can see there, can’t you, that she’s saying:

“Older people and their families continue to raise significant concerns about the issues currently facing care homes …”

She’s raising concerns around testing, availability of PPE. And if we just look down at the list, again PPE and testing amongst other things being raised.

If we just look at the last bullet point, she’s also saying:

“Information is captured and published about levels of infection and deaths, so there is transparency and so that the data informs decisions including on resource allocation.”

If you look slightly below that she’s asking the Welsh Government to publish a specific action plan and citing, just below that, that there are now suspected nearly a third of care homes in Wales have coronavirus.

So my question to you is: as a member of Cabinet, did this document come to your attention at the time? To assist, we can’t see it was being discussed in Cabinet minutes, so do you remember whether it was brought up in Cabinet?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I can’t recall that coming up in Cabinet. There were general discussions about care homes, I can’t remember whether this particular statement came before us.

Ms Heaven: But do you agree that as a minister it should have been brought to your attention? And I know you obviously were not responsible at this point, but just generally in the Cabinet do you think this sort of a document should be something that’s raised in Cabinet, bearing in mind where it was coming from and the concerns that were being raised?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Well, we all have different ministerial responsibilities and the deputy minister responsible would certainly have had sight of this and I’m sure would have drawn people’s – the relevant people’s attention to it. When I did step into the role as health minister, I have met with the Older People’s Commissioners and have correspondence with her.

Ms Heaven: Now, the Inquiry’s seen that the response did come from Julie Morgan, the deputy, and we’re not going to look at that letter now, but essentially the response was that she was not convinced that an additional action plan above the existing arrangements would add value.

Just to assist, this is what Helena Herklots told the Inquiry, she said:

“I thought that was inadequate …”

And that she was:

“… angered actually by the notion that working on an action plan, producing an action plan, bringing the work together, would add no value, at a time when people were dying in care homes where families were distraught. I just thought the response was inadequate.”

So again my question is this: was Cabinet sighted on the response that was to go out to Helena Herklots, do you recall?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: That wouldn’t have been normal practice for us, to see letters that go out in response from –

Ms Heaven: Was it discussed?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I can’t recall that it was discussed.

Ms Heaven: Okay.

Second topic, please, is learning of lessons.

Now, as I said earlier, it’s understood that you came into post in May 2021 as Minister for Health and Social Services. Now, you will understand that the people in Wales who lost loved ones from Covid-19 are looking to this Inquiry, and indeed members of the Welsh Government like yourself, for answers as to not just what went wrong but also to see if the Welsh Government has reflected and considered what you could have done better, and of course you’ll understand the trauma of those who lost loved ones in care homes.

I’ve just taken you to some of the very serious concerns being raised by Helena Herklots. Now, no doubt when you came into your role in 2021 you will have reflected on these issues, and you will of course have reflected on the critical findings of the Senedd Health, Social Care and Sport Committee reports into the Welsh Government’s response to Covid-19 in care homes in Wales.

Now, you rightly acknowledged a moment ago, when you gave evidence in Welsh, that many people are anxious to get replies to questions, and you very fairly say in your witness statement there is a need to provide answers to those who have lost loved ones.

So bearing this in mind, can I ask you this, and it’s whether you consider that the Welsh Government made any mistakes in how they dealt with care homes in 2020 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and whether there are lessons to be learnt?

Just to be clear, this is not a question about hindsight, which of course we’ve heard a lot about in this Inquiry, it’s about whether you think mistakes were made in respect of the management of care homes on what was known by the Welsh Government at the time.

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Well, I know that the health minister gave evidence yesterday around the issue of testing and he was the one in a position to be able to make decisions in relation to that. What I can tell you is in relation to the time when I was health minister I did try and learn some of the lessons. So, for example, when Omicron hit, one of the things we did was to tighten up guidelines around people who visited multiple sites, and that included care homes. So that was something that I know we tried to learn the lesson of.

Ms Heaven: But what lessons were learnt by the Welsh Government? I know you were in post in May 2021, but you must have had to reflect back, because we know the Senedd was undertaking enquiries, so you must have had to reflect back. Are you able to tell the bereaved in Wales and indeed this Inquiry what lessons your department learnt about how this was managed in care homes in 2020?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: So the example I’ve just given you is an example of the lessons learnt. So one of the things that we were concerned with is the potential for people who moved from one care home to another to be carrying the virus, and that’s why when Omicron hit we tightened up the guidelines around the visiting of multiple sites.

Ms Heaven: What about testing, PPE, discharging of people into care homes with Covid symptoms in 2020? Were any lessons learned about that, do you think?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: Well, later on a lot of that was put in place. So at the beginning of the pandemic there may have been issues in relation to the testing opportunities. That wasn’t true later on in the pandemic.

Ms Heaven: Thank you very much, my Lady.

Lady Hallett: Thank you.

Thank you, Ms Heaven.

Questions From the Chair

Lady Hallett: A couple of questions from me, Baroness Morgan.

You mentioned in your evidence in answering questions from Ms Cecil that you got what you called learning from your international relations, which, as you said – you mentioned two things, ventilation and face coverings. What was the learning you got in relation to face coverings from international experience?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: What we were looking for there was not – was what other people were doing rather than – and then I fed that to the appropriate department at the time. So it wasn’t what I learnt, it was information that I then passed on. And it was up to them to determine that.

Lady Hallett: Were you getting the impression that the international experience was that use of face coverings was a good idea?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I wasn’t making any judgements on it, I was just passing on the information of what other people were doing.

Lady Hallett: I appreciate you weren’t making a judgement, but did you get the impression that international experience was suggesting that people in foreign countries were saying that face coverings were a good idea?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: In some instances that was the case, particularly perhaps in educational establishments.

The Chair: And you passed that on to your colleagues?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I did pass that on to my colleagues.

Lady Hallett: You talked about the cautious approach of the Welsh Government. It doesn’t seem to have acted on that kind of experience when it came to face coverings.

Baroness Eluned Morgan: We were following a lot of the advice given to us by the Chief Medical Officer.

Lady Hallett: Right.

The only other question I have, and just to be fair to you, you said that you had deleted your WhatsApp messages, why did you delete them?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think – I mean, I didn’t delete anything deliberately. I think I’ve handed over reams of –

Lady Hallett: I understand that, I just – really it’s a simple question, to be fair to you, because, as you know, WhatsApp messages cause a lot of interest in certain circles, so it’s just really why and when did you delete them.

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I think, I don’t know quite why or when, but clearly there were only a couple of examples where that happened and you do have the information from those.

Lady Hallett: Right. So you can’t help on why or when?

Baroness Eluned Morgan: I can’t help on that, no, apart from what’s in my evidence.

Lady Hallett: Right.

Thank you very much for your help. You’re now free to go.

The Witness: Diolch, thank you.

(The witness withdrew)

Lady Hallett: Yes, Ms Cecil.

Ms Cecil: Thank you. May I call Rebecca Evans, please.