Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, revealed that thousands of documents had been requested. “We sought agendas, minutes and other documents related to key decision-making forums such as cabinet meetings, Cobra meetings and ministerial implementation groups,” he said. “We have requested ministerial submissions, Number 10 daily briefing documents, records of written and oral advice to ministers and details of internal communications, including a WhatsApp group which included the Prime Minister, Number 10 and other senior officials.” The inquiry asked for evidence for its second part, which will scrutinize policy decisions and actions in relation to the pandemic between early January 2020 and February 2022, when the remaining COVID restrictions were lifted. The Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Office of the Chief Medical Officer and the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage) are among the departments and groups asked to provide evidence. Initial responses from government agencies indicated that tens of millions of documents could potentially relate to the general topic of section two. Checking documents at the cabinet office alone can take more than three years, he said. Mr Keith said the search would take a “targeted approach”, seeking documents about the key narrative events and decisions covered by the second section. Read more: The year of the pandemic – an interactive timeline of the evolving crisis Earlier, as the second stage of the statutory inquiry opened, Mr Keith said the hearings would examine whether lives could have been saved by earlier lockdowns. In his opening speech, Mr Keith said the crisis was putting “extraordinary levels of pressure” on health, care, the financial and education systems and businesses, on top of individual bereavements. Baroness Heather Hallett, chair of the inquiry, will examine the effectiveness of mandatory restrictions in controlling the spread of the coronavirus. This will include “the relationship between the timeliness and duration of the lockdown and the trajectory of the disease”, Mr Keith said. He continued: “How have the economic and social impacts, including impacts on physical health, healthcare provision, mental health, education and social welfare, been assessed and weighed? “And perhaps, my lady, the single most important question: is it possible to say what the likely consequences of earlier or different intervention decisions would have been? The contradictory proposition. “Got it, would lives have been saved if the lockdowns had been imposed earlier or otherwise?”
