Covid Inquiry FAQs – Client Webinar – May 2022

In May 2022, we hosted a 'Live Newsletter Webinar' for our clients as an opportunity to provide them with important updates, and to give them a chance to ask us questions, live. You can see a comprehensive list of the questions asked and our answers below.

 

Q. There are no transcripts or documents relating to the meetings (that the Chair had with the 150 bereaved families) on the Covid Inquiry website. Whereas there are transcripts for other meetings - long covid, etc. Are there official records of the meetings that were held and (assuming there is some record) why are they not public?

A.The Chair told the bereaved families that their comments would be taken in confidence. For this reason, the documents are not made public.

 

Q. Will the Inquiry ask the Prime Minister why he repeatedly broke the rules that he enforced on the country?

A. Yes, the Prime Minister should hopefully be questioned during the Inquiry. If the Chair's legal team does not question him about this, our team will ask to do so. That said, ultimately it is up to the Chair who is called and what questions are put to them.

 

Q. What reasons were originally given by the chair not to share the Terms of Reference? Was she forced to share them in the end by the parliamentary committee? Does this provide an indication she has another agenda?

A. No reasons were given and no she was not ordered to share the ToR by the APPG. We cannot even be certain that the APPG was responsible for the change of heart. It is more likely that the press publicised the comments and the Chair reacted to the publicity but this is an area where nothing is clear cut. We raised this point with the Inquiry legal team and the important thing is that the Chair has in fact published her proposed ToR. It is too early to draw inferences about agendas - it may simply be for instance that the legal advice to the Chair said one thing but she on reflection chose another path. Nevertheless this illustrates the need for both the campaign and legal teams to continue to highlight important issues to the Chair and persuade her to do the right thing.

 

Q. Will the Inquiry cover infection control and visiting hospitals too?

A. The Inquiry will look into infection control and visitation policies in hospitals and care facilities. These topics fall under her recommended Terms of Reference in Para 1(b)(iv) and Para 1(b)(v).

 

Q. Are the team confident that the scope is not getting too broad?

A. Ideally a broad scope approach is best as we can ensure everything the families want to be covered is covered. Until we see the List of Issues which expand on the Terms of Reference (and, of course, until we know what the final Terms of Reference are) it is too early to say whether the scope is too wide. We will keep this under review, and do everything possible to keep the focus on the issues we have advanced and on seeking change for the future. We will also keep emphasising to the Chair that this Inquiry should have a clear timescale and should not go on forever. There is another unconnected Inquiry (into undercover policing) which is in its seventh year and the current prediction is that it will take a further four years to complete. That must not be allowed to happen here.

 

Q. What other support can bereaved families get? There doesn’t seem to be any links or information on the government website. Even finding counselling on the NHS is a struggle.

A. We will send you bereavement resource links that we have found useful. If anyone else would like to get these, please email us.

 

Q. What are the implications of the recent high court ruling that the government acted illegally in their discharge of untested patients back into care homes?

A. We will be hosting a webinar on this on the 7th June 2022, more details will follow in the week commencing 30th June. The headline declaration is very helpful in that it held that the government guidance was unlawful, however, other parts of the judgment were unhelpful, in particular a ruling that the obligations arising under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not apply.  The Inquiry is not bound by this ruling (because it only applies to a very narrow part of the pandemic response) but it will be influenced by it.

 

Q. Will there be any move to include coverage of how the government's actions have affected public compliance with covid measures? E.g. their unclear messaging and not following rules themselves.

A. We expect that government messaging to the public and rule breaking will be covered in the Inquiry. The undermining of measures taken to combat the spread of the virus is a key issue.

 

Q. Will the Inquiry look at why people admitted to hospital at the peak of cases were not routinely tested?

A. According to the Chair's report she has suggested that the Inquiry look into the management of the pandemic in the hospitals including: infection prevention and control, triage, critical care capacity, the discharge of patients, the use of ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions, the approach to palliative care, workforce testing, changes to inspections, and the impact on staff and staffing levels; Para 1(b)(iv) in the Terms of Reference.

 

Q. Why have there been no issues raised concerning the financial impact on families and the lack of help from funeral funds or widowers payment? This was raised with Lady Hallett. Also, where is there mention of DNR'S being put on Patients in Hospitals without the Family's knowledge or Patient's agreement?

A. The financial implications of being bereaved will be covered in the bereavement support section of the Inquiry. The high volume of DNRs placed on loved ones will also be looked into.

 

Q. A lot has been said about the mental health of the bereaved who had families in care homes. Has the Chair ensured that the impact of the way the pandemic was handled on those held in mental health institutions will be included?

A. The Chair has suggested in her recommended Terms of Reference that the Inquiry look into the public health response in "prisons and other places of detention" - covered in Para 1 (a) (xviii) of the Terms of Reference.  The Chair has also suggested  that the Inquiry look into the response of the health and care sector across the UK. We believe that the issue you raised should be included in the Inquiry under the above subtopics.

 

Q. I am so pleased to hear the care home issues, including vaccination management are being added to the enquiry. Unfortunately missed the opportunity to be interviewed by Lady Hallett or those involved in collecting information. Will another opportunity be available to do that going forward?

A. The Chair's consultation period has finished now but there should be other opportunities to have your say by way of the listening project. Also, certain people may be picked to speak in the hearings about certain topics but we don't know who will be chosen. Once the Inquiry is set up we expect that we will be taking witness statements, and making representations about which witnesses, including family members, should be called.

 

Q. Rees-Mogg kept repeating that 'his view' is that the rules were too strict. He assumed that the official Inquiry would look at this. My concern is that this is simply so he can clear what No.10 got up to at gatherings and parties.

A. Many people think the Government's initial position was 'herd immunity' which delayed an appropriate response and caused many preventable deaths, and would have led to an even higher number of deaths if they had not changed position in late March 2020. The Inquiry will look at the response and whether it was appropriate, and what opportunities were missed.

 

Q. Will the Inquiry look at contingency planning and arrangements made as result of previous exercises and experience in other pandemics?

A. Lady Hallett's recommended Terms of Reference will look into the "preparedness and resilience" of the public heath response across the UK. However, we think that preparedness does not have the emphasis it should have. We have made very detailed submissions about this and we will continue to do so, as this is absolutely key to the failed response but moreover to the future.

 

Q. Does the PM still get the final say on the Terms of Reference even if Lady Hallett says certain things should be included?

A. Yes, the Prime Minister has the final say on Terms of Reference (which is a problem with the Inquiries Act 2005). However, it will be hard for him to reject her recommendations. Also, the Terms of Reference can be altered at any point during the Inquiry, so we will continue to push for everything that is relevant to be properly investigated.

 

Q. Do the ToR cover the delay in holding the Inquiry? If the Inquiry was carried out earlier, valuable lessons might have been learnt that could have helped us deal with the pandemic more effectively and efficiently

A. This is unlikely to be covered formally, although we have raised this point from the outset and we will continue to do so, in particular when we make our opening speech to the hearings. As you know, the Government has sought persistently to delay the Inquiry on the basis that the pandemic has been ongoing.

 

Q. Will the Terms of Reference address how the government performed in relation to other countries?

A. This Inquiry will look into how the devolved nations (Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) dealt with the pandemic. The current Terms of Reference state that the Inquiry shall also 'have reasonable regard to relevant international comparisons.'  It is obviously imperative that the Inquiry learns why certain parts of the world had very different mortality rates, as that evidence will assist in making appropriate recommendations for the future.

 

Q. Is it possible to have judicial review if we are unhappy with the ToR and role of the PM in determining them when he is potentially up for criticism?

A. If the Prime Minister rejects any of the Chair's proposed Terms of Reference it will be difficult to take a legal challenge because of the way in which the Inquiries Act was drafted. However, we will attempt to persuade Lady Hallett to have another go and raise the issues very publicly, including through sympathetic MPs in parliament. In addition, Lady Hallett will have substantial discretion to shoehorn issues into the Inquiry once she starts, so this is unlikely to be a major problem.

 

Q. Will the Inquiry look at how full time carers were left on their own? Will it also look at the fact that paid carers brought the virus into people' homes?

A. The proposed Terms of Reference put all care facilities and 'at home' care within scope. Lack of support for paid and unpaid carers and failures of infection control will be key issues.

 

Q. Can the Chair legally require ministers to appear?

A. Yes, and crucially to give evidence on oath.

 

Q. Can you confirm that the fact that hospitals discharged infected people directly into care homes is covered in the ToR?

A. The Chair's recent recommendations would cover that. ‘The management of the pandemic in care homes and other care settings, including infection prevention and control, the transfer of residents to or from homes, treatment and care of residents, restrictions on visiting, workforce testing and changes to inspections' Para 1 (b) (v) in the Terms of Reference.

 

Q. What about no visiting restrictions when people were dying? Can anything be done about this in the Inquiry?

A. Visiting restrictions/policies will be investigated in the Inquiry, yes. This is covered under Para 1 (b) (v) of the draft Terms of Reference.

 

Q. Do we know why the Coroners Covid emergency powers are still in force?

A. The Coronavirus Act largely expired on 22nd March 2022 but some provisions were kept in force for another 6 months, presumably because Coronavirus is still with us.  The underlying policy appears to have included limiting the number of covid inquests. That element of the act remains.

 

Q. To what extent does the structure of the Terms of Reference govern the structure of the Inquiry and how it is managed?

A. The Terms of Reference is the scope for the Inquiry so everything within it will be looked into. We will know more about the structure once the Inquiry is set up. We are actively trying to get the Inquiry team to discuss the process with us and how it will be organised.

 

Q. If significant issues are excluded from the Inquiry does this impact the requirements of human rights legislation?

A. It depends very much on the issues; the Gardner case was not helpful on the obligations that arise from Article 2 (the right to life) but was decided on very narrow facts and issues which should not restrict the Inquiry. We have made, and will continue to make, submissions on process (how Lady Hallett should conduct the Inquiry). These are strongly based upon human rights obligations and principles.

 

Q. Will hospital's conduct be scrutinised, specifically regarding the dishonesty of notified DNRs?

A. We will press for very careful consideration of the DNR policy and guidance, including the way in which it was operated. We note this is a widespread concern, and it is complex. The Chair has recommended that use of DNACPR decisions be investigated in the Terms of Reference (see Para 1(b)(iv).

 

Q. In a nutshell what is single goal of this Inquiry?

A. Examine the preparedness for COVID-19 and the actual response to it, and the impact of the pandemic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Inquiry should produce an evidenced, official, definitive, factual narrative account, determine accountability for failures which contributed to loss of life, suffering and hardships. Finally it will make recommendations to ensure the lessons learned from this episode inform the UK’s preparations for future pandemics.

 

You can find more information on how to instruct free legal representation, how to join the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Group, and more.