The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy
Quin) I am grateful for permission to make a statement on the
Government’s decision to seek a judicial review on a specific point
of law relating to the public inquiry on the covid pandemic. The
whole House will recognise that, as you so eloquently said, Madam
Deputy Speaker, on any issue that is before the courts, a Minister
needs to act and speak with extreme sensitivity. We fully respect
the difficult role...Request free trial
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General ()
I am grateful for permission to make a statement on the
Government’s decision to seek a judicial review on a specific
point of law relating to the public inquiry on the covid
pandemic. The whole House will recognise that, as you so
eloquently said, Madam Deputy Speaker, on any issue that is
before the courts, a Minister needs to act and speak with extreme
sensitivity. We fully respect the difficult role that judges need
to perform, and I appreciate that the conventions of this place
are designed to ensure that we do not make their role—the sober
and detailed consideration of facts of law by those qualified to
do that—any harder. I am sure that the House will respect the
fact that, for those reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to
debate the fine details of this case.
Notwithstanding that, we felt that there was very real public
interest in the broader issue of why the Government would take
the unusual step of asking for a judicial review on a point of
technical difference between the Government and an inquiry that
the Government have established. That being the case, we felt, as
ever, that the matter should be raised in this House.
The Government fully support the vital work of the inquiry, which
seeks to establish the facts, and the lessons to be learned from
the response to the pandemic. It is right that the inquiry on
covid-19 be comprehensive and rigorous. It is being chaired by
, an eminent former Court
of Appeal judge. In this dispute, the guidance of the courts is
sought on a narrow and technical point of law. It does not touch
on the Government’s confidence in the inquiry. Nor does it in any
way affect the Government’s intention to continue full
co-operation with the inquiry. To date, the Cabinet Office alone
has submitted 55,000 documents to the inquiry. We will continue
to provide any and all covid-related materials requested.
We are grateful for the work being undertaken by the inquiry
chair and her team. The pandemic was one of the most difficult
times for our country in living memory —so many people lost so
much. The inquiry’s task is challenging. It must have the support
of us all in conducting its work, and in bringing forward its
conclusions in a timely way. The core point of principle that is
raised is whether there are limits to the power of the inquiry to
compel information and documents to be produced.
Specifically, the question raised by the compulsory notice under
the Inquiries Act 2005 that was served on the Cabinet Office is
whether the inquiry has the power to compel production of
documents and messages that are unambiguously irrelevant to the
inquiry’s work, including personal communications and matters
unconnected to the Government’s handling of covid. The notice
received is bound to include a range of material of that nature.
It covered a two-year period and a range of documents, including
WhatsApp messages relating to my right hon. Friend the Member for
Uxbridge and South Ruislip () and a former special
adviser.
I reiterate that all material that is relevant to the inquiry’s
work has been and will be provided to the inquiry; likewise,
material about which there might be real questions about its
relevance to that work. There is no question but that all
internal discussions on covid, in any form, requested by the
inquiry will be made transparently available to it. What has been
redacted, and so not provided in response to the notice, is
material that the Cabinet Office considers to be clearly and
unambiguously irrelevant to that work. That material includes,
for example, communications about purely personal matters and
about other aspects of the Government’s policy and work which
have nothing to do with covid. It is that material, and that
material alone, that is subject to judicial review. Hon. Members
wanting to see more detail of our concerns may be interested in
our letter to the inquiry, sent last Thursday, which is available
on the Government’s website and a copy of which I will deposit in
the House of Commons Library.
As in any such dispute, there are two sides to this debate.
, as I have said, is a
highly respected senior judge and inquiry chair in whom the
Government have great confidence. The inquiry has made relevant
statements regarding the Government’s position on its website, to
which I draw the House’s intention. The inquiry will no doubt be
making further statements. Above all, as I understand it, the
inquiry believes that it should be for the inquiry alone to judge
the relevance of the material requested. We respect that position
and, as I have indicated, the Cabinet Office has provided
material about which there might be a dispute.
Where we differ with the inquiry is only in relation to material
that is considered to be clearly and unambiguously irrelevant,
and that is considered to be so after careful checking. This is a
genuine and sincere difference of opinion on which we are seeking
the guidance of the courts. I do, however, want to assure the
House that the Government have explored with the inquiry ways to
bridge the gap between those sincerely held but differing views,
and we will continue to do so. We appreciate the patience and
goodwill shown by the inquiry as we have sought to identify a
mutually acceptable solution.
We have also sought to assure the inquiry on the nature of the
redactions of non-relevant material from the information
requested in the section 21 notice and how those would operate.
The process deployed to ascertain and redact unambiguously
irrelevant material from that information is as follows.
Witnesses are required to identify any material that may contain
potentially irrelevant information to the inquiry, with guidance
from the counsel team supporting them. That is then reviewed by
the counsel team, who identify any material that is unambiguously
irrelevant. The counsel team discusses it with the witness in
case there is any context or detail of which they may not be
aware. The review by the counsel team includes the assessment of
a King’s Counsel instructed by the Cabinet Office. No decision to
redact material as unambiguously irrelevant has been or will be
taken by a witness acting alone.
These redactions will all be kept under review such that if the
scope of the chair’s inquiry changes, she will be able to receive
the material that becomes potentially relevant. I would like to
reiterate that this is a matter of legal principle that will have
an impact on this Government and all future Governments. This is
absolutely not related to one individual’s personal
information.
In conclusion, I would like to again issue my thanks to the
inquiry chair and her team for the important work they are
undertaking. The Government have only embarked on this course
after serious consideration. It is with regret that we felt the
judicial review had to be brought forward. We are very aware that
it is sometimes in the nature of government that difficult
decisions have to be taken, knowing that in the short term they
may of course be criticised or misinterpreted, but which we
believe are important for the country in the longer term. Whereas
it is entirely right that any material in any way related to
covid is available to the inquiry, we believe there is value to
challenge and debate inside Government being unclouded by the
knowledge that other discussions could be disclosed regardless of
their relevance to any future inquiry. As such, we believe this
request for guidance is necessary.
Finally, I would like to make it absolutely clear to all those
directly affected and bereaved by covid that the Government will
do absolutely nothing that we believe impedes the vital work of
the inquiry, to give them the answers they deserve and that the
country needs to ensure that we learn the lessons of covid. I
commend the statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow spokesperson.
(Putney) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement. This
weekend I walked the length of the covid memorial wall on the
banks of the Thames just opposite this building. Every heart on
that wall symbolises a life lost to covid. Every heart represents
a family who lost a loved one—a mother, father, sibling, friend
or colleague—to that terrible disease. That is what the covid
inquiry is about: preventing a repeat of that same tragedy, which
cost so many lives and still affects so many of us; and answering
the questions that so many families still have.
This week, we all watched with embarrassment—I am sure that
Government Members on the Benches behind the Minister feel the
same privately—as the Cabinet Office, the Department responsible
for upholding transparency in government, briefed journalists
that taxpayers would be picking up yet another legal bill to pay
for the Prime Minister’s ploy to obstruct the covid inquiry. We
need more information: public inquiries are a core ministerial
responsibility in the Cabinet Office; and vital lessons are
learned through inquiries, which save lives in the future. By
undermining and challenging the inquiry, the Government could
undermine not only trust but public safety. Then, there is the
cost: hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on
legal fees.
May I ask the Minister a few straightforward questions? How much
has his Department projected the judicial review to cost? Does he
agree with his Minister’s assessment that the review will
“probably” fail? Does he think that time would be better spent on
complying with the inquiry, handing over the information and
learning lessons to prevent another pandemic, rather than this
infighting?
Can the Minister confirm media reports that his Department’s
lawyers have threatened to pull the plug on the
taxpayer-subsidised legal defence fund for the right hon. Member
for Uxbridge and South Ruislip ()? Does he agree that
Ministers must be held to the highest standards of transparency
and openness? In that spirit, what guidance has he given to other
Cabinet Ministers about handing over WhatsApp messages to the
inquiry? Will we be back here again?
How many inquiry-imposed deadlines for evidence submissions have
been missed to date? Can the Minister confirm whether the Prime
Minister has already handed over his WhatsApp messages to the
inquiry in full? Can he confirm how many devices have been handed
over by the former Prime Minister?
The Minister claims that the Government have handed over 55,000
documents to the covid inquiry. I commend civil servants for
working through the night to look at them, but his Department
previously admitted that well over 20 million documents could be
relevant. What criteria have been used to determine whether
evidence will be suppressed?
It comes down to trust. We need to be able to trust the process
and the determination of what is relevant and what is not.
People’s trust in this Government is severely weakened, and the
judicial review is undermining it further.
The hon. Lady started where I ended, and she is right that the
focus of the inquiry must be the people who have been affected
and bereaved and the lessons that this country needs to learn. I
commend her for her walk over the weekend. It is harrowing to see
that memorial and to remember what it represents.
Government is tough. It is easier, in many ways, to be in
Opposition. They do it very well on the Opposition Benches, and I
am sure that they will get even more practice over a long period
of time, but in government we have to take very difficult
decisions. It does not take a genius to realise that the decision
we felt we had to make regarding a judicial review may be
misinterpreted and criticised, but we have to look at the
long-term consequences for this and future Governments. There are
important—albeit technical—matters of law, and we need guidance
to ascertain how this and future inquiries should operate.
The hon. Lady asked a series of questions, one of which was on
cost. I cannot give her an exact number, but I am delighted that,
from what we have heard from the courts, the judicial review
looks to be heard very soon and in a timely fashion, which I
would welcome for a number of reasons. I will certainly not get
into our view of the case. That would be pertinent; it is before
the courts, which must look into that and take their own
view.
I will go through all the points the hon. Lady made. There is a
long tradition, under all Administrations, that Ministers should
be provided with support for their legal fees and for their work
to support and help the inquiries that are established—that is
the right thing to do.
The hon. Lady is right that we have already passed over some
55,000 items. To counsel a note of caution about the hon. Lady’s
reference to 2 million documents, those undertaking the inquiry
have made it clear that they do not want to be flooded with
information that is not relevant to the inquiry, and therefore we
go through the process of trying to ensure that they get all the
information that they require that is covid related. The point of
issue is only material that is unambiguously not relevant to the
inquiry. We go through a process, which I have set out to the
hon. Lady and to the House.
I reiterate that we have a great deal of confidence in the
inquiry. We know that those undertaking the inquiry are
absolutely assiduous in their work, but we feel that there is a
technical point of law on which we need to have guidance from the
courts, and that is what we are pursuing.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public
Administration and Constitutional Affairs.
(Hazel Grove) (Con)
The problem is that if Government business is conducted by means
of WhatsApp, public inquiries will express an interest in reading
what was transacted. My right hon. Friend is well aware of what a
statutory public inquiry is and how that is established under the
Inquiries Act 2005. Indeed, he referenced section 21 of that Act,
which makes it clear that it is for the inquiry chair to decide
what is required. When he says that the question is about
material that might be “unambiguously” irrelevant, surely it is
for the chair to determine that. It was spurious nonsense to hear
some Ministers witter on about personal information about their
children being disclosed—that is not the case. Nor is it my
understanding that any of this material will be subject to a
freedom of information request. May I ask my right hon. Friend
why, sadly, the Government have chosen this course of action?
I thank my hon. Friend, but in my recollection the Act refers to
related material. However, we will not dwell on that as it is a
matter for the courts.
I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend regarding WhatsApp
messages. Such messages should not be used for taking policy
decisions; those decisions should be taken formally and through
the proper course. Any WhatsApp information presented will cover
all manner of things between individuals and may well include
illness, family or other personal issues. That is simply a
statement of fact.
I think it is absolutely vital that we have guidance on this
technical point. When other inquiries reported, we were perhaps
in an era before a whole range of means of communication,
including WhatsApp. I would point out to my hon. Friend that
while WhatsApp has got the attention, the technical point of law
applies to all manner of communications, not simply WhatsApp,
about what is unambiguously irrelevant or what is relevant, and
the process will determine that.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.
(Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. As has
been said, this is a serious and important inquiry for all of us
whose lives were impacted by covid, particularly those who lost
loved ones.
This matter is one of the most bizarre things that we have dealt
with recently—and this has been a wild few years. What is the
point in having an inquiry if those carrying it out are not
confident that they have all the relevant information? Actually,
the inquiry is not being given the information; the information
is being given to the Government, and the Cabinet Office is then
filtering it and passing it on to the inquiry. If those
conducting the inquiry, which the Government set up, are asking
for this information, then they should be given it.
May I ask the Minister about the group of people who are looking
at the information? Who are the counsel team that are involved in
considering the relevance of the information alongside the
witnesses? Are any politicians who are, or were formerly, in the
Cabinet, other than the witnesses themselves, involved in the
decision making about whether the information is relevant? How
can we be clear and confident that this inquiry will have all the
relevant information if we do not even know who is taking the
decisions or how the decisions are being taken? As for the
information that we do have, we have had to pull it out of the
Government.
We have talked before about the breaches of the ministerial code,
and the fact that it was entirely in the gift of the Prime
Minister to decide whether or not a person was investigated in
relation to the code. Once again, the Cabinet Office is holding
something in its own grip and refusing to allow the rest of us
any say in, or any look at, what is happening. Who watches the
watchers in this regard? Who is considering whether the
transparency that is being shown is actually being shown
properly?
Any answers that the Minister can provide will be much
appreciated.
Sir (Rhondda) (Lab)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The hon. Gentleman is showing off his Latin! But let me respond
to the hon. Lady’s important question about who is keeping an eye
on this and who is running it. I want to give her an absolute
assurance—she asked for one, and it was reasonable for her to do
so—that there is no political involvement in the process of
establishing what is and is not relevant information, and what is
unambiguously irrelevant. That is a process undertaken by
lawyers, by the counsel team, with a KC involved. It starts with
witnesses being required to say, “These are the materials that
may be in scope”. They must then go through the process,
initially with the counsel team and with an overview from the KC;
but no politicians are involved. The hon. Lady described this
process as “wild”, but I do not think it is. I think it is quite
narrow and technical, but I also think it is important for the
future conduct of such inquiries, and for this inquiry, that we
know exactly where the law stands.
Sir (South Swindon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House, bravely, to
defend the Government’s position. Is it not the case that the
courts will be very reluctant to become involved in
second-guessing the decision making of , and will have to decide
that she has got things very wrong indeed before they wish to
intervene? This prompts, does it not, the question in the old
wartime adage: “Is your journey really necessary?” In that
spirit, I must press my right hon. Friend and ask him whether he
is ensuring that all manner of expedition is taking place. Will
there be a very early hearing in the divisional court? Those
concerned—and we have all heard their heart-rending
stories—cannot wait a moment longer for the resolution of these
important matters.
As my right hon. and learned Friend says, the chair of the
inquiry is both experienced in inquiries and an eminent former
Court of Appeal judge. I have alluded to arguments that have been
presented, and Members may well wish to look them up.
This is a matter for the courts to determine, but I entirely
agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it is something
we want to advance at the swiftest possible pace—and,
incidentally, while doing so we will continue to supply documents
to the inquiry. That process continues, and I hope the inquiry
will feel able to continue its vital work, but it is important
for the matter to be resolved in the courts as soon as possible.
I am pleased to inform my right hon. and learned Friend that,
according to my understanding, the courts have indicated that we
can use an expedited process and have a divisional court hearing,
which is expected to be held on or shortly after 30 June. I am
very grateful to them for doing that so swiftly.
(Walsall South) (Lab)
The Minister has not answered the question about why he thinks
the Government should decide what is and is not relevant, rather
than the chair of the inquiry. He has said how well qualified she
is; will he please now answer that question?
It has always been the case in respect of inquiries set up by the
Government, when it comes to Ministers and former Ministers, that
the Government have undertaken that role, although it was not a
process governed by the Inquiries Act 2005. That was, I believe,
the case with the Chilcot inquiry, and that is what the
Government do: they help to put the information together and to
ensure that all relevant information is presented. I do not
believe there is a precedent for an invitation to provide
information on quite such a wide basis—all information over a
two-year period, involving a certain means of communication—so
this is a new situation, but what the Government are doing is
consistent with what Governments have, I believe, always done in
these circumstances.
(Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Can I urge the Minister to build not on the legal aspects of this
statement but on the discussions with the inquiry? How can the
Government build trust with the inquiry—it has a strong position;
the Government have a different view—whether through mediation,
legal teams meeting or reading rooms? What are the ways through
to move this topic on?
My right hon. Friend asks an excellent question, but I hope he
will forgive me if I do not get into potential ways through. That
would be a matter for the Government to discuss directly with the
inquiry, but I very much hope that a way can be found that avoids
the court’s time on 30 June. If there is a way through, that
would be warmly welcomed.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
I urge the Government to think about the fact that so many people
on all sides of the House are asking the same question: how can
it be right for the Government to mark their own homework? How
can it be right for the Government to decide what is relevant to
the inquiry? Surely that is the job of the inquiry. Could the
Minister please answer that question? We are all concerned that
the Government are going to have the final say, and surely that
is not correct.
I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that this is not an issue
on which the Government are marking their own homework—absolutely
not. Some 55,000 documents have been delivered to date, with
everything that is covid-related being surrendered and provided
to the inquiry on its request. The only issue of contention is
information that we believe to be unambiguously irrelevant. I
genuinely believe that all the information will be provided to
the inquiry that it needs to ensure that the handling of covid in
this country is fully and properly understood, and that it will
be marking the Government’s homework.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
A vast study published today by Johns Hopkins University and
widely reported in the press has found that the draconian methods
used in lockdowns by various countries including our own had
negligible effects on mortality and might have saved only 1,700
lives. This inquiry is therefore probably the most important
public inquiry that we have had in recent years. It is absolutely
essential for our credibility that everything is given to the
inquiry, and there can be no perception that anything is being
hidden. The Minister talks about personal behaviour as being
irrelevant, but the then Prime Minister lost his job not because
of the decisions he took on lockdowns but because of his alleged
personal behaviour. My strong advice to the Government, for
whatever it is worth, is: let everything hang out and just
co-operate with the inquiry; let it have what it wants and let us
get to the truth.
I hear what my right hon. Friend says. I would not want there to
be any perception that we are not ensuring that the inquiry has
all the information that it requires. We believe that that does
not need to include information that is clearly and unambiguously
irrelevant, although I know what he is saying.
Sir
To be honest, this just feels like a terrible fool’s errand. As
the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs
Committee, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), said
earlier, section 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005 is absolutely
unambiguous. Let me introduce that word into the conversation:
unambiguous. It states that the chairman may require a person
“to produce any other thing in his custody or under his
control”.
It also states:
“A claim by a person that…it is not reasonable in all the
circumstances to require him to comply…is to be determined by the
chairman”.
It is absolutely unambiguous. The chairman is only required
to
“consider the public interest in the information”
being provided. So I cannot see where this is going to lead,
unambiguously, other than to a dead end. Can the Minister confirm
that the chairman has been very specific in asking only for
covid-related WhatsApp groups, not all the WhatsApp messages on
anyone’s phone? Has the chairman asked for the present Prime
Minister’s, as well as the previous Prime Minister’s, WhatsApp
messages in those groups? And has the former Prime Minister’s
former telephone, with its former WhatsApp messages, also been
provided to the Government? If not, when will it be provided?
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate why I will not go into parsing
the 2005 Act, which is a matter for the courts. There are two
views, and the courts need to determine their interpretation of
the Act and what it means. I can tell him that the request from
the chair goes beyond the covid WhatsApp groups, so it is a
broader swathe of information that will inevitably touch on
information shared between individuals that may be personal in
nature and may certainly relate to non-covid issues. Anything
covid related goes to the inquiry.
(Sleaford and North
Hykeham) (Con)
Clearly the inquiry needs everything that is relevant, and
clearly it does not need anything that is personal or unrelated,
which should remain private. It is clearly very important that
the public are able to trust the result of the inquiry, and it is
clearly very important that the inquiry is done quickly so that
we learn the lessons fast and so that people who have lost loved
ones, or who have had ill health as a result of long covid, find
out what happened, but this is not the first public inquiry to
include sensitive information. Presumably the Government have an
almost infinite amount of information that they could provide, so
they have to select that which is relevant. This has happened
before, and no doubt it will happen again. How does it happen
normally, and why is this particular case so different?
The circumstances are different, and my understanding is that a
wider amount of information has been required. I totally
understand and respect where the chair is coming from in going
for a wider request involving messages from two particular
individuals over a two-year period, as well as other information.
That is of a different nature from some historical inquiries,
which is why there is a novel point of law on which the
Government seek clarification of that technical issue.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
Ever since the Supreme Court ruled that the Prorogation of
Parliament by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South
Ruislip () was unlawful, successive
Tory Governments have been very keen to restrict the right to
judicial review for ordinary members of the public who want to
challenge Government actions. Does this litigation indicate a
new-found enthusiasm for judicial review? Will the Government
consider repealing the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, or is
judicial review just for those such as them?
There is obviously a role for judicial review, and there has to
be a role for judicial review. I have great respect for the
learned judges who are required to opine on these technical
points of law. It is not something the Government do lightly, as
the hon. and learned Lady will appreciate. The Government
established this inquiry, but we feel that, given the
implications for this and future Governments, we need
clarification from the courts on this point of law. I am glad
they are there and are able to provide that clarification.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
It is obviously vital that lessons are learned, but they must be
learned in a timely fashion. There was a great deal of press
comment over the weekend about how, say, Sweden completed its
inquiry in February 2022. On that note, I commend to the Minister
and the House the joint report by the Health and Social Care
Committee and the Science and Technology Committee on the lessons
learned from covid, to which the Government have already
responded, covering an awful lot of the same material, although
will obviously consider
further material.
Turning to the matter at hand, I understand that the Government
want to defend and, indeed, test the legal principle, but I
reiterate the urging of my right hon. Friend the Member for
Skipton and Ripon () in asking the Minister to do
everything he can to find a middle way through so we can avoid
this JR proceeding.
If we can find a way through without this, that would be helpful
to all concerned. Everybody wants to get on with this inquiry,
and, as I say, we will continue to deliver documents. I hope that
we do not delay, in any way, the work of the inquiry while the
courts determine on this technical point. I thank my hon. Friend
for drawing attention to his Committee’s inquiries, but there is
a huge amount that needs to be covered. I recognise that the
chair’s remit is very broad and that there is a lot of work that
the chair and the inquiry will wish to do, but the quicker we can
get answers to this, the better.
(Birmingham, Selly Oak)
(Lab)
As I understand it, this inquiry was negotiated and consulted on,
with its terms of reference agreed, before it got going. Yet,
astonishingly, it is only once it starts doing its job—only when
it starts asking for evidence—that this vital point of principle
surfaces. I do not blame the Minister for sticking to his brief,
but does he honestly think anyone in the public is going to buy
this?
This process started with the delivery of that section 21 notice;
the earlier rule 9 notices were different in their construction.
This is a wide request from the chair, which is perfectly
legitimate, provided it is not including unambiguously irrelevant
information—that is what we are focused on, only that. I must,
once again, assert that every bit of information that is
covid-related is not under any question at all—this is only about
stuff that is unambiguously irrelevant.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
I listened carefully to the Minister’s statement and I have never
heard so much insulting verbiage. He says that
“it should be for the inquiry alone to judge the relevance of the
material”,
but then directly contradicts himself by saying that the
Government are going to do it. He says he respects Baroness
Hallett’s position and then actively disrespects it by taking her
inquiry to court. He then says that doing so
“does not touch the Government’s confidence in the inquiry.”
Has it occurred to him that it might just touch the public’s
confidence, both in this Government and in the inquiry itself,
and that in so doing it is adding insult to injury to bereaved
people? It is also undermining public safety in the future,
because if we do not know that an inquiry such as this is going
to get to the heart of the matter, what confidence can we ever
have that the Government will learn the lessons when we face the
next pandemic, as we surely will?
The last thing this Government or I would wish to do, in any way,
is undermine confidence in this inquiry. I was fulsome in my
respect for the inquiry and its chair for good reason: is an eminent former
Court of Appeal judge and has had experience of other inquiries.
As I say, 55,000 documents have been delivered already and
everything in relation to covid for which the inquiry asks will
be delivered. The only issue is on this narrow point about
information that is unambiguously irrelevant. That is the point
on which we are seeking the insight of the courts.
(Bethnal Green and Bow)
(Lab)
Almost 227,000 people lost their lives to covid and in my borough
540 people died. Many of us personally lost loved ones. We have
faced the trauma of loss and of reliving the horrors of covid
when the partygate revelations involving the former Prime
Minister but one came out into the public domain throughout the
past year. We now face the obscene spectre of legal battles and
delaying tactics employed by this Government, which serve to
undermine the covid inquiry and delay justice for bereaved
families. What does the Minister have to say to the bereaved
families, who are horrified by and are in disbelief at the fact
that public money is being used by the Government to obstruct the
covid inquiry? Instead of delay, obstruction and cover-ups, is it
not time that the Minister apologised and made sure that this
inquiry took place immediately?
Let me reassure the hon. Lady that the inquiry is ongoing and is
doing its work. I have no doubt that it will be doing it
assiduously and thoroughly. As I say, 55,000 documents have
already been delivered to the inquiry and we are continuing to
deliver information to it that it requests. Anything that is
covid-related is passed to the inquiry. This is a narrow point of
legal definition that we are seeking to get resolved. I hope that
she was reassured by my response to my right hon. and learned
Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir ); we are hoping to get this
in front of the courts very swiftly, and I hope there will be no
requirement for delay. I sincerely hope that the inquiry can
continue its work in the meantime. If there is a means of
resolving this without going to the courts, that would,
obviously, be welcomed.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
The Swedish inquiry reported 15 months ago. Our inquiry is only
starting to take evidence now, and is expected to take three
years. We now have further delay with this legal wrangling over
what information can and cannot be given. The revelations in the
WhatsApp messages from the former Secretary of State for Health
revealed the often offhanded way in which decisions were made
that affected millions of people and cost billions of pounds.
Does the Minister not understand that this further delay only
raises the fear in the public’s mind that the drawn-out process
and the legal wrangling over it are designed to bury the
evidence, to cover for mistakes and to cover for those who made
them?
It does not matter how inappropriate or unfortunate the language
is in these WhatsApp messages; if they relate to covid, they must
be delivered to the inquiry and rightly so. Anything in relation
to covid must go to the inquiry if it is asked for—of that there
is no doubt. It is purely if the information is unambiguously
irrelevant that there is this discussion on the point of law. I
agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we want to get a
response as swiftly as possible. I hear what he says about the
Swedish inquiry. Our inquiry has wide terms of reference. There
is a lot for the team to cover—it is doing it in modules—but I do
hope that it will be able to make progress. I sincerely hope that
an early resolution of this narrow point of law will ensure that
there is no delay to the work of the inquiry.
(Slough) (Lab)
During the covid pandemic, I lost my lovely grandmother, my uncle
and my brother-in-law’s father, not to mention other family
friends. I now find it utterly shameful and deplorable that this
Government are taking the covid inquiry to court. The likes of me
are looking to the covid inquiry to provide answers so that we
can begin to make sense of our immense losses. We know that many
other nations have already concluded their inquiries and learned
the lessons. What does the Minister have to say to those bereaved
families who are looking on in utter disbelief at their
Government’s disgraceful use of public funds, not to mention the
efforts to further frustrate the process?
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion, as well he might. I
am very sorry for his loss, and I know the whole House would
think the same. He speaks for so many in this country who
suffered bereavement and were afflicted by covid and its dreadful
consequences. We need to get to the bottom of this, and we must
do that in a timely and effective way. As I said earlier in my
remarks, there are decisions that are made in government that we
know will be criticised, and understandably so, because people
are desperate to see the result of this. None the less, there are
points of principle and points of law that will have a bearing
not only on this inquiry, but on all those in the future, so we
find it necessary to take the step of a judicial review. I
sincerely hope that it does not impinge on the ongoing work of
the inquiry. As I have reassured the House, we will continue to
deliver documents to add to the 55,000 already delivered. I hope
the work of the inquiry is not impeded while we get, hopefully,
an early hearing on this issue and it is resolved in the
courts.
(North Ayrshire and Arran)
(SNP)
Many, many people will be interested in the covid inquiry, not
least, of course, the bereaved themselves. It is not credible for
any Government to establish an inquiry into any matter and then
take the decision as to what is or is not relevant to that
inquiry. Despite the Minister’s protestations, it seems that the
suggestion is that the chair of the inquiry is confused as to
what is or is not relevant, and has to be corrected by the
Government.
By way of contrast, the former first Minister of Scotland, , and the former
Scottish Health Secretary, , have both said they will
co-operate absolutely and fully with the Scottish inquiry into
covid-19. Why will this Government not give the same level of
co-operation? Does the Minister not realise that their
slipperiness and lack of transparency only make it look as though
they are hiding something? What does he think the Government have
to hide?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing to bear her
experience of the Scottish inquiry under Lady Poole, which I
believe is also being held under the 2005 Act. We all have an
obligation to support the inquiry in its work. This is a matter,
given the nature of the UK inquiry and the question it has posed,
about whether it should include within scope information that is
unambiguously irrelevant. I do not know whether any requests for
emails have been made to Nicola Sturgeon, whether those are
purely covid-related or on all manner of issues over a period of
time, or with whom. I do not know whether she made those remarks
having received, or prior to receiving, an invitation to provide
information. I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that people
should wish to support the inquiry and ensure that it does its
work, but there is a point of law on whether material that is
unambiguously irrelevant stands, and that is something we need to
get sorted.
(Eltham) (Lab)
The Government seeking a judicial review on their own inquiry
that they set up under the relevant legislation is not a good
look. Did they give consideration to what would arise if the
judicial review was successful and hobbled the ability of the
chair of the inquiry to access all the information that she
considers relevant? Would her position be untenable?
I have been absolutely clear about the respect in which we hold
the chair of the inquiry, who is an eminent former Court of
Appeal judge and has a lot of experience in inquiries. The
Government sincerely believe that we are able to provide every
bit of evidence that is covid-related to the inquiry and, where
there is a matter of doubt about that, we should share it with
the inquiry in any event. It is only on information that is
unambiguously irrelevant that we believe there is any question of
law, and I think we all respect the decision of the courts on
these issues.
(Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
(PC)
Going to court over which Government WhatsApp messages matter and
which do not is an unedifying distraction. The TUC has shown that
poverty and high vulnerability to covid went together, and before
the pandemic Wales had the highest rate of poverty and disability
of all UK nations. Does the Minister therefore agree that
politically procrastinating over this evidence only serves to
postpone the key lesson to be learned: that the austerity agenda
left poor communities in Wales defenceless during the pandemic,
and that they are no better prepared for the next?
The right hon. Lady will recall that there were a series of UK
Government schemes right across the United Kingdom to support
people through a very difficult time. I believe that there is a
covid inquiry ongoing in the Welsh Government as well, and we
will all have lessons to learn. I take her point that she wants
this done in a timely and swift manner. So do the Government,
which is why I am delighted that the judicial review will, it
appears, be heard soon. As I have said, I hope and believe that
it should not stymie the work of the inquiry over the next few
weeks, as we will continue to deliver documents to ensure that
the work can continue.
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
The Minister has dressed this up in a lot of legal language, but
in essence it is a nakedly political decision to operate in this
way. I wonder why, when the principle of the inquiry deciding
what is relevant is well established and was appointed to the
inquiry 18 months ago, this issue has arisen only now? The
Minister will be aware that it raises huge concerns about what is
going on here. If he has total confidence in , as he appears to do, he
should be confident that when he hands over documents that he
considers completely irrelevant, she will come to the same
conclusion, no one will ever see them and there will be no
embarrassment to the Government. What is the problem with that
approach?
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Do I trust inquiries to
keep information confidential? We have to do that; they are
serious people undertaking serious work—I assume there are 70, 80
or even more of them, and I am sure they will take their
responsibilities extremely seriously. However, he must consider
what the impact might be on communications and on people
discussing issues if they have that cloud hanging over them that
any material related or unrelated to a particular inquiry could
be required by it. That might even cloud the consideration of
Governments in the future about the use of inquiries under the
2005 Act—I do not know. There are genuine long-term ramifications
that need to be considered. It is quite a narrow point of law,
but it might have wider considerations. Therefore, it is wise to
get that narrow point of law satisfied by the courts, and we
respect the courts’ judgments.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Minister was not intending to suggest that the
Government would not support public inquiries if they do not win
this case. He has heard the concerns in this House about how the
Government’s decision could look. He seems to be saying that the
Government are seeking clarification on what they see as mission
creep and on what unambiguously irrelevant documents and
questions might be, and that there is an element to do with
modern technology and the use of WhatsApp. He said the Government
were looking for guidance. If he wants to restore faith on all
sides of this House, and if all the Government are trying to do
is to get guidance on a narrow point of law, will he commit here
and now that, whatever the outcome of the judicial review, the
Government will not appeal it?
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady, not for her second
point, but for her first. If I misspoke in any way and gave the
impression that this Government would shy away from future public
inquiries, I apologise to the House, because that was not my
intention. Public inquiries have an incredibly important role to
undertake and it is important that they are supported. On the
second point, she will understand that we are in a legal process
and it will be seen through. We of course respect the views of
the courts, but it would be rather rash to come to a conclusion
before hearing what the divisional court says on the issue.
(Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister always gets the hard stand, and he always perseveres
to give answers as best he can; we thank him for that.
Some 3,445 people died in Northern Ireland because of covid-19.
Some of them were good friends. Other hon. Members have also
referred to losing loved ones, and I think of Billy Allen, Norma
McBride and my own mother-in-law, Jemima George. They all died
alone and they all followed the rules, every one of them. My
constituents who lost loved ones have a simple request: they want
their questions asked and they want the answers. It is clear to
them that many in certain places of power blatantly disregarded
the rules while others followed them implicitly, as my family
did. Everyone who lost loved ones wants the questions and the
answers. Can the Minister confirm that will be the case
throughout the inquiry, and also that the scope will include
decisions taken to close schools and surgeries to the public,
which were critical issues for my family and my constituents?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I felt it was
appropriate, even though we have had to have a careful discussion
in the House, that hon. Members were able to raise questions
regarding the decision to take this matter to JR. It is an
unusual decision, but we thought it was important on this point
of law. As so often, he brings us back to the key point we must
all consider in relation to the covid inquiry: the impact on the
bereaved and those afflicted, and the necessity to learn lessons.
From my reading of the terms of reference, they cover the points
he raises. Those are valid points of concern and interest. We
must learn lessons to ensure that we get it right if the country
ever faces such dreadful circumstances again.
|
