The first cross-examinations of the government’s response to the pandemic, including decisions on lockdowns, maintaining public trust and managing scientific advice, will begin in the summer of 2023, two and a half years after the arrival of the coronavirus, which has claimed more than 200,000 lives in the UK Kingdom. Hearings on the UK’s preparedness will start in late spring 2023, as Lady Hallett said she wanted to move “as quickly as possible so that lessons are learned before another pandemic”. Boris Johnson has been repeatedly criticized by campaigners for the bereaved and Labor for delaying the launch of the inquest. Hallett said he would scrutinize the “performance and effectiveness” of central government decision-making and messaging – matters that could expose current and former ministers. The inquiry has powers to compel the production of evidence and the appearance of witnesses. Johnson’s official spokesman said the prime minister plans to cooperate with the investigation. “It was the prime minister who established the inquiry and signed the terms of reference,” he said. To make the “demanding” terms of reference more digestible, Hallett will break the research into sections, with teams researching and commissioning research on different topics. The hearings will be held consecutively, suggesting the proceedings could take several years. At least eight other units are likely to follow, but won’t be announced until next year. These include: vaccines, therapeutics and antiviral therapy. the care sector; government supplies and personal protective equipment; testing and tracing; government business and economic responses; health inequalities and the impact of Covid-19; education, children and young people; and the impact of Covid-19 on public services and in other areas. Hallett, a retired appellate judge and peer, said people and organizations would have to apply to be key participants in each section. Jo Goodman, co-founder of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice campaign, said: “Today has been an emotional day for those of us who have lost loved ones and it meant a lot to hear Baroness Hallett acknowledge the “devastating nature of bereavement and pain that we have been through. Hopefully this will be reflected by not making bereaved families go through the stressful and tedious process of applying to be key participants in each unit.” Hallett also announced that the public will be able to take part through a “listening exercise”, starting later this year, which will bring together the experiences of the people most affected and “those whose voices are not always heard”. Responses will be analyzed to highlight key themes, but individual accounts will not be investigated, to prevent an already extensive investigation from spiraling out of control. Hallett said she “would have to be ruthless” and that it would be impossible to call every witness, adding that the inquiry must focus on the core issues. But he stressed that inequalities would be “at the forefront” of the inquiry. “Those who have suffered the most want to know if anything could have been done to prevent or reduce their suffering, and that is why this inquiry has been carried out,” he said. Subscribe to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every morning at 7am. BST The hearings will take place in different parts of the UK, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and Hallett said she aimed to be “thorough and efficient, rigorous and fair”. When it came to gathering evidence, he spoke against “people or organizations that stand in the way.” Lawyers have already asked the government for assurances that it will not block the release of key information amid fears that doing so could expose it to compensation claims from bereaved families. Elkan Abrahamson, head of major investigations and inquests at Broudie Jackson Canter, which represents bereaved families, said: “It is fundamental that we have access to all relevant documents and that the Government provides full disclosure to the inquiry. Mourners would regard anything less than full disclosure as a cover-up.’
