-
Question
How much has your Department projected the judicial review to cost? Does it agree with its assessment that the review will probably fail? Would time be better spent complying with the inquiry and learning lessons rather than this infighting?
Minister reply
The minister did not provide a specific figure for the costs of the judicial review, but he emphasises the importance of upholding government principles on transparency and accountability. He reassures that all relevant material will continue to be provided transparently.
-
Question
Can you confirm media reports about threatening to pull the plug on a legal defence fund for Boris Johnson? Does he agree that Ministers must be held to high standards of transparency and openness?
Minister reply
The minister does not comment directly on specific media reports but reiterates that all material relevant to the inquiry will continue to be provided, emphasising the importance of maintaining high standards of transparency.
-
Question
How many deadlines for evidence submissions have been missed? Has Boris Johnson handed over his WhatsApp messages in full?
Minister reply
The minister does not provide specific details on missed deadlines but reassures that all relevant material will continue to be provided, including efforts to bridge differences with the inquiry chair regarding unambiguously irrelevant documents.
-
Question
What criteria have been used to determine whether evidence will be suppressed?
Minister reply
Material is reviewed by counsel teams and King's Counsel, who assess the relevance of documents. Unambiguously irrelevant material is redacted based on these assessments.
-
Question
I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement... (full question as provided)
Minister reply
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....
-
Question
The problem is that if Government business is conducted by means of WhatsApp, public inquiries will express an interest in reading what was transacted... (full question as provided)
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend, but in my recollection the Act refers to related material....
-
Question
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement... (full question as provided)
Minister reply
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....
-
Question
The Minister has been thanked for defending the Government’s position regarding the court's reluctance to intervene in Baroness Hallett's decision-making process. The MP asks if an expedited hearing can be arranged, given the emotional distress of those involved.
Minister reply
The chair is experienced and qualified; however, the matter is one for the courts to decide as soon as possible. The divisional court has indicated that they will use an expedited process with a hearing expected on or shortly after 30 June.
-
Question
The MP asks why the Government believes it should decide what is relevant to provide, rather than leaving that decision to Baroness Hallett.
Minister reply
In previous inquiries set up by the Government, including Chilcot, providing information has always been managed by the Government. However, this situation is new due to its broad scope involving a two-year period of WhatsApp communications.
-
Question
The MP inquires about methods to build trust between the Government and the inquiry, such as mediation or direct discussions.
Minister reply
Building a way forward without court involvement is desirable. Direct discussion with the inquiry could be considered but would not be disclosed here.
-
Question
The MP questions whether it is right for the Government to decide what information is relevant and urges full transparency.
Minister reply
All 55,000 documents have been provided, with only unambiguously irrelevant data disputed. The inquiry will receive all necessary information.
-
Question
The MP references a study suggesting minimal impact of lockdown measures and stresses the importance of full transparency in providing information to the inquiry.
Minister reply
Ensuring the inquiry has all necessary information is crucial. However, clearly irrelevant data will not be included despite the MP's advice.
-
Question
The MP cites section 21 of the Inquiries Act to argue that the chair's request is unambiguous and demands clarity on whether all requested data has been provided, including from the current Prime Minister.
Minister reply
The 2005 Act interpretation is a matter for the courts. The inquiry requests more than just WhatsApp groups but includes non-covid-related communications.
-
Question
The MP notes the importance of public trust in the inquiry’s findings and asks how the selection process for relevant information usually occurs.
Minister reply
While previous inquiries had narrower requests, this case involves a broader scope over two years, leading to legal clarification needed.
-
Question
The MP questions if there is a newfound enthusiasm for judicial review after recent restrictions by Tory Governments and whether the 2022 Act will be repealed.
Minister reply
Judicial review remains important, with learned judges needed to provide legal clarity on specific points of law affecting future inquiries.
-
Question
It is important to learn lessons timely. Sweden completed its inquiry in February 2022, and the Government should do everything possible to find a middle way to avoid legal proceedings.
Minister reply
The Government wishes to find a solution without going to court but must resolve the legal principle first. The quicker this is resolved, the better for the work of the inquiry.
-
Question
This crucial point of principle only emerges once the inquiry starts asking for evidence and there is public concern over the Government's position.
Minister reply
The issue is about unambiguously irrelevant information. The Government will deliver all covid-related material without question.
-
Question
The Minister’s statement was insulting and contradictory, undermining public confidence in the inquiry and future pandemic responses.
Minister reply
Baroness Hallett is an eminent judge respected by the Government. 55,000 documents have been delivered, focusing on resolving this narrow legal point swiftly.
-
Question
The Government's actions are undermining the inquiry and delaying justice for bereaved families.
Minister reply
The Government is committed to delivering information to the inquiry without delay, focusing on resolving this narrow legal issue quickly.
-
Question
Further delays raise fears that evidence might be buried or covered up.
Minister reply
Any inappropriate language in WhatsApp messages related to covid must go to the inquiry. The Government hopes for an early resolution of this legal issue.
-
Question
It is shameful that the Government is taking the inquiry to court, causing further frustration and disbelief among bereaved families.
Minister reply
The Government will continue delivering documents to the inquiry. The legal issue must be resolved without impeding the ongoing work.
-
Question
Why is this Government not giving full cooperation like the Scottish inquiry, leading to perceptions of hiding something?
Minister reply
The issue concerns material that is unambiguously irrelevant. People should support the inquiry; there is a point of law that needs clarification.
-
Question
The Government's decision to seek 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 she considers relevant?
Minister reply
The Government sincerely believe that we are able to provide every bit of evidence that is covid-related to the inquiry, sharing it with the inquiry in any event where there is a matter of doubt. It is only on information unambiguously irrelevant that the question of law arises.
-
Question
Going to court over which Government WhatsApp messages matter and which do not is an unedifying distraction. Does the Minister 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?
Minister reply
There were a series of UK Government schemes right across the United Kingdom to support people through a very difficult time. I take her point that she wants this done in a timely and swift manner, but there is a judicial review ongoing which we hope should not stymie the work of the inquiry over the next few weeks.
-
Question
The Minister has dressed this up in legal language, but it is a nakedly political decision to operate in this way. If he has total confidence in Baroness Hallett, why not hand over documents that he considers completely irrelevant?
Minister reply
There are genuine long-term ramifications that need to be considered regarding the use of inquiries under the 1985 Act and communications if any material related or unrelated could be required by a particular inquiry.
-
Question
If all the Government are trying to do is 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?
Minister reply
We respect the views of the courts but it would be rash to come to a conclusion before hearing what the divisional court says on the issue.
-
Question
Can the Minister confirm that all questions and answers will be provided throughout the inquiry, including decisions taken to close schools and surgeries to the public?
Minister reply
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.