11 June 2025

(10.30 am)

Lady Hallett: Good morning, Ms Dobbin.

Ms Dobbin: Good morning.

Opening Remarks by the Chair

Lady Hallett: This is the second preliminary hearing for Module 8, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on children and young people, and it’s the opportunity for core participants, and Ms Dobbin on behalf of the Inquiry, to present oral submissions highlighting the most significant issues that they wish me to consider in the build-up to the hearings this coming autumn.

So I’ll now ask Ms Dobbin to outline the issues as she sees them. I must emphasise, as far as everyone is concerned, that, as ever, I will have to be imposing a tight timetable. I don’t wish to interrupt everyone but if I have to I shall.

Ms Dobbin.

Submissions by Lead Counsel to the Inquiry for Module 8

Ms Dobbin: Thank you. My Lady, this is the second preliminary hearing in Module 8 of this Inquiry and it’s considering the impact that the pandemic had on children and young people throughout the United Kingdom. This is a hybrid hearing. There are a number of Core Participants who are present in the Inquiry hearing room today and, of course, there are a number who also appear online before you too. I really hope that they don’t regard it as a discourtesy if I don’t reintroduce them all again. There are very many of them and I think that you are now familiar with everyone who appears in this module.

My Lady, this is an important hearing for reasons that I will set out in the course of this submission but before I make it I wanted to acknowledge the contributions that all Core Participants have made in terms of the preparation for this hearing and in relation to those issues which fall for discussion today, and, on behalf of the whole Module 8 team we really are grateful for the assistance which they have given.

My Lady, as we noted at the last hearing, what really unites Core Participants in this module is their shared dedication to children and to improving children’s lives. Each of them brings a different and important perspective to the module and we know that each is dedicated to ensuring that this module is as effective as it can be. Part of ensuring that it’s effective involves at this point narrowing down and honing those issues that will be explored in oral evidence.

The observation that an inquest or an inquiry is like a funnel, wide at its outset and progressively distilling the issues may be trite and I apologise for making it, but it is accurate. It does require the Inquiry to identify the issues that would warrant greater scrutiny in an oral hearing and those witnesses who ought to appear at a hearing as well, whether it be for reasons of fairness to them or, for example, because there are contested issues of fact that need to be resolved.

The Module 8 team wanted to be candid with its Core Participants about how it would seek to achieve an effective hearing and, to that end, we circulated a list of provisional list of issues to Core Participants and a note which attempted to set out the approach that was being taken in advance of this hearing. Again, I’m really grateful on behalf of the Inquiry for the constructive engagement that we received in response to that list and to the issues, and particularly as the investigation narrows and preparation really does begin in earnest for the oral hearings in the autumn.

As you will expect, my Lady, Core Participants have different views contingent upon the interests and the perspectives that they bring to bear on this Inquiry and I know that some will address you further on that today.

Before they do, and in light of some of the submissions that have been made, I wanted on behalf of the Inquiry to lay out some of the landscape and to reiterate some of the points about the scale, the sheer scale, of Module 8’s work. It was recognised by the Inquiry at the outset of Module 8 that the decisions made principally to close schools (that is, those decisions to close schools to most children in March 2020 and from December 2020 to January 2021 and to lock down) upended most children’s lives, and that there was, therefore, that need to consider the broad impacts that the pandemic may have had across the population of children in the United Kingdom, so, for example, having regard to education and to mental health.

But it was also recognised that there were children for whom there would be disproportionate impacts or impacts of the panic that compounded existing difficulties in their lives and it was obviously important that this Inquiry, consistent with the approach that it’s taken to disparities throughout all of its work, investigated the position of these children too and, of course, in respect of all children to identify what lessons could be learnt to better protect them in the event of a future pandemic. Of course, as you have observed many times, my Lady, that is part of the core mission of this Inquiry, so in other words, that Module 8’s work must involve examination of the broad impacts on children and the specific impacts on some of the most vulnerable children in society.

Now, as part of that work, Module 8 commissioned the Children and Young People’s Voices Report. Under the rubric of that research, 600 interviews were conducted with children and young people who were between the age of 5 and 18 years during the pandemic. 300 interviews were undertaken with a sample of children broadly reflective of the UK population, and 300 interviews were with a targeted sample of specific groups of whom there was evidence to suggest were especially negatively impacted by the pandemic.

That report will be disclosed to Core Participants over the summer and in good time before the start of the Module 8 hearing.

So that’s research. In respect of evidence-gathering and Rule 9 requests, requests for statements have been sent to government departments, organisations and individuals across the United Kingdom about the range of impacts which the pandemic has had and this includes on specific groups of children, on children’s development, education, attainment in respect in their exposure to specific harms on their health, on their mental health and well-being.

Since the last update note provided by the Module 8 team to Core Participants, we’ve sent a number of further Rule 9 requests. These include, so this isn’t the full list but, again, it’s just to give Core Participants some idea of those whom we expect evidence from. It includes Mr Jonathan Slater, the former Permanent Secretary to the Department for Education; Ms Victoria Atkins, former Home Office minister with responsibility for safeguarding; Ms Layla Moran, Member of Parliament; Professor Charlotte Watts, who was a former member of the Children’s Task and Finish Group; Ms Kirsty Williams, who was the former Minister of Education in Wales; Mr Vaughan Gething, the former Minister for Health and Social Care in Wales; Mr John Swinney, who had a number of positions but who is currently the First Minister of Scotland; Ms Maree Todd, the former Minister for Children and Young People for Scotland; Ms Michelle Donelan, who was the former Universities Minister in the UK Government; Ms Gillian Keegan, who was the former Minister for Apprentices and Skills; and Mr Richard Lochhead, the former Scottish Minister for Further and Higher Education too.

So, my Lady, again it just gives you some idea of the range of witnesses to whom the module has gone.

Core Participants will get the usual update which will set out all of those other witnesses who have been approached in the forthcoming July update.

My Lady, the point is this, that brings the total number of requests for witness statements in Module 8 to 306. That is the most of any module in this Inquiry and that’s despite the fact that a number of modules were longer than this one. Those who have been asked for witness statements include a number of former ministers, senior officials, like the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Education; the Chief Medical Officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty; the chair and vice-chair of the SAGE Children’s Task and Finish Group; major government and devolved administration departments across the UK; the Children and Young People’s Commissioners across the UK; regulatory, inspectorate and public health agencies, again across the UK; NHS England; relevant medical Royal Colleges and professional associations of those who work in children’s health and mental health; charitable organisations and individuals involved in children and young people’s mental health and well-being, Inspectorates of Prisons and Independent Monitoring Boards; and a number of schools and multi-academy trusts across the United Kingdom.

And, of course, a number of the Core Participants in Module 8 have a deep vein of experience in the issues that are before Module 8 and have also been asked to provide statements.

In relation to expert evidence, expert reports have been commissioned on the impact of the pandemic on the development of children who were under 5 during the pandemic, on children’s mental health and well-being, and on education too.

My Lady, I can tell you that Core Participants have seen and commented on two draft reports to date.

Furthermore, the module is obtaining a short addendum expert report on Long Covid in children as well. That’s in addition to the expert report that was prepared for Modules 2 and 3 on Long Covid by Professors Brightling and Evans, who also addressed Long Covid in children and the provision of specific paediatric services as well. So the paediatric expert who was consulted in the preparation of that report, Dr Segal, has been instructed to prepare that addendum as well on some further specific issues related to children.

My Lady, I think it’s important to make clear that Module 8 doesn’t anticipate sending further requests for evidence given the sheer scale of the evidence requested to date. You’ll have seen that in their submissions, some Core Participants suggest further witnesses who could be approached. Those have been considered carefully but it was the view of the Module team that either the issues that we suspect that that witness might go to is covered by another witness; some, in fact, have already provided statements to the Inquiry in another module, so they could be admitted in this module; or in some instances it’s not clear to us why Core Participants consider that a given individual should be approached for evidence; or we’ve concluded that it isn’t proportionate or necessary to send a request to a specific person because of the other evidence that’s been gathered in the module.

I thought it was important to make that clear at this point.

Just turning then to the provision of statements, my Lady, you know that this Inquiry depends on Core Participants providing their statements in good time. It’s so important because of the time that the Inquiry needs to review the statements and the exhibits, to then provide feedback, to finalise statements and deal with redactions before they can be onward disclosed. A number of key statements, including from Government departments, are now overdue. The Inquiry is mindful of the pressures that there are on a number of key material providers and across a number of modules of this Inquiry but, obviously, delays in receiving evidence hinder the progress of this module and particularly in assisting us in making sure that the key issues are identified and of course that has knock-on effects in terms of disclosure to Core Participants and their preparation as well.

The Inquiry is taking steps to pursue every overdue statement and will provide an update for Core Participants in the next monthly update note. But, of course, my Lady, if the Inquiry can’t be certain when it’s going to receive those important statements or deadlines are repeatedly missed, then you may wish to consider issuing a Section 21 notice to the individual from whom the statement is to come, if you think that it’s reasonable to do so and so that the investigation can progress efficiently.

My Lady, some non-governmental Core Participants are seeking significant extensions of time for the submission of their draft statements and one includes a request for an extension until the beginning of August 2025. But, my Lady, as I’ve explained, that’s just really not tenable in this module because it needs to be able to act on the information provided and that may include putting key issues to other witnesses and, again, because of that need to finalise and disclose statements to other Core Participants, and so that we can identify which witnesses ought to be called to give evidence as well.

It’s this module’s intention and plan that it will have received all draft statements by the end of June or the beginning of July, for these reasons and, of course, it’s important to say that in any inquiry there’s a real limit to what you can do when you have very late notice of new issues or new information and your ability to effectively act on that as well, and that’s why it’s really important that those statements come in whenever they are due.

My Lady, again, I say that in order to be transparent and realistic about the effects that the late provision of evidence has on the Inquiry and on other Core Participants as well.

My Lady, may I turn then to the approach to the hearings. Module 8 has the task of taking all of this evidence, and the very considerable disclosure made to it, and marshalling it into the ambitious timetable which you have set for the hearings. That undoubtedly requires that we take a disciplined approach to a hearing that will need to accommodate consideration of decision-making at the highest levels, the implementation of decisions, the broad impacts, the disproportionate impacts, and also look to the future and to recommendations too.

It was stated at the outset of Module 8 that consideration of impact would necessarily entail some consideration of decision-making too. Put shortly, that consideration of impacts is, for obvious reason, difficult to decouple from the decisions that may have produced those impacts and, again, coming back to that core function of making recommendations, understanding whether decision-making could be improved is foundational. Again, it’s to that end that Rule 9 requests have been sent to ministers and senior officials in relation to those principal decisions that were made during the pandemic, which affected children and the justification, of course, for them.

But, my Lady, in addition to that, it became apparent to the Inquiry that consideration also needed to be given to the practical implementation of Government decisions as well, at local authority level and at school level. So to that end, Module 8 surveyed every local authority in England, Wales and Scotland and then followed this work up with Rule 9s to selected local authorities and that was really to ask them more granular questions, so, for example, about the provision of social work to children during the pandemic.

My Lady, I just want to make clear I didn’t mention Northern Ireland but that’s because the local authorities in Northern Ireland don’t have the same functions as their counterparts in the provision of education and social care.

So that work was undertaken and then Module 8 also sent requests for statements to a sample of schools across the United Kingdom and the statements that have been provided in response to that are really illuminating as to some of the difficulties that were faced on the ground in implementing the policies that were designed to mitigate the impact of lockdown and school closures on children.

My Lady, again on behalf of Module 8, I wanted to thank all of the respondents to those Rule 9s. We understand that it has placed pressure on individuals and organisations but the explanations and the insights that they provide are really important and the written statements form as important a part of the evidence in Module 8 as other sources of evidence because, of course, written statements are considered by you, they inform questions to witnesses, they can be put to witnesses and will be used for the purposes of report writing as well.

My Lady, the note to Core Participants made the point that, although there were some regional variations in terms of approaches taken to children and, by way of good example, the use of child rights impact assessments in Scotland and Wales, the principal impacts on children don’t appear to vary to a significant degree across the UK. I just wanted to make sure that Core Participants understood what we meant by that. It’s well understood by us that some decisions and preparations (for example for school closures) varied across the devolved administrations and that there is merit in considering the use of child rights assessments in that regard. But what we were emphasising was that the principal impacts of the pandemic on children and young people doesn’t appear to vary across each of the four devolved administrations. The evidence the Inquiry has received so far about impact on children and young people’s learning and attainment, and physical and mental health, for example, indicates a fairly consistent picture but, equally, of course, it’s understood by us that in each part of the United Kingdom there are areas of particular socio and economic disadvantage.

We are, of course, not ignoring that. That many children would be disproportionately affected by the pandemic for reasons linked to poverty cuts across the module’s work and the questions that are being asked of witnesses. Again, it’s that sort of thread that runs through all of our work.

But what the Inquiry will avoid doing is calling exactly the same evidence about impact and decision-making from each of the devolved administrations and it won’t seek to forensically compare every decision that was made affecting children in each of the four nations because that would consume very considerable time in the hearings but not advance the Inquiry’s understanding of impacts on children and, again, I emphasise that there will be this very considerable body of written evidence upon which to draw.

Ministers from devolved administrations were called in Module 2 as well to give evidence about school closures whereas, for example, Sir Gavin Williamson was not and, whilst the Inquiry is not in a position to say yet which witnesses are likely to be called, I have on behalf of the Inquiry previously said that Sir Gavin Williamson would be called to give oral evidence in the Module 8 hearing. But it will consider whether or not particular witnesses from the devolved administrations could be called to give, for example, evidence on important points of difference or issues which are of very specific interest to them.

So, my Lady, just returning to the hearings then, it’s obvious that they cannot be scattergun. They need to have a coherent structure and be focused on the most important issues, or those that require resolution of factual dispute, or that go to enduring issues, or those which it might be important to address for the future pandemics. We have started to give thought to how we could refine the issues and to give thought to how the hearings might be structured.

At present, and this is very much – and I really want to emphasise it – initial thinking, Module 8 has considered calling evidence that’s organised around the following topics: so looking at initial evidence about impact of the pandemic on children and young people; considering key decisions taken by ministers and senior officials which affected children at the key junctures during the pandemic; then looking at the implementation or the monitoring of impact of those decisions at the time. So that’s when you might have evidence from the school sector or from local authority children’s services, regulators, inspectorates or in relation to crime, policing and justice, and I really do want to say these are just indications.

Then separate to that, experts and factual witnesses who can speak to the impacts, some what may be ongoing impacts, and who might also be able to focus then on what has been learnt from the pandemic.

But, my Lady, can I make three immediate observations about that. Those themes don’t necessarily indicate the order in which the evidence would be heard. There are obviously different ways that this hearing could be structured and that needs to be carefully considered, including taking into account witness availability. Second, it will be obvious that there are a number of witnesses whose evidence would straddle all of those considerations, so decision-making, implementation and impact. Third, my Lady, we thought it useful to share this because, once you give thought to structure and how witnesses could be scheduled by reference to the content of their evidence, the importance for the need for focus becomes all the more important.

In relation to decision-making, the note before this hearing to Core Participants noted that much of the focus would be on those decisions to close schools to most children and the consequences which rippled out from that, and it was said that there was little in Module 8 that could be decoupled from the closure of schools given the many impacts that stemmed from them.

Of course that observation applies to the vast majority of school-age children precisely because they attend school, and reflects the centrality of school to children’s lives, not just as somewhere where they receive education, of course vital that is, but where they learn to socialise and learn other skills. Of course, schools are a place respite to many children, providers of food and other forms of support. Schools play a vital role in the provision of information about children who are in need or at risk. They are a critical part of the safeguarding machinery in the UK. The non-attendance of children at school and whether that rendered the more vulnerable to criminal exploitation is another example of the linkage between closures and the diffuse impacts they may have had on children.

The question of the relationship between school closures and ongoing problems which exist in terms of persistent absenteeism from schools, behaviour in schools and rates of exclusion amply demonstrate why it’s right that school closures and the mitigation of their impacts should be a particular focus of the module.

One of the principal ways in which the UK sought to protect vulnerable children was to permit them to attend school. The evidence gathered thus far suggests that children identified as vulnerable attended school in very small numbers during the first period of school closures. It may have been better in the second period of UK-wide period of closures but this is a point to be investigated.

But again, it’s really important that the Inquiry is able to assess the effectiveness of that policy of permitting vulnerable children to attend school and, for example, what may have worked in increasing their attendance.

But not everything in Module 8 will be considered through the lens of school closures. For example, the Children and Young People’s Voices Report which, as I’ve said, will be disclosed in good time to Core Participants, highlights the importance of family dynamics during the pandemic as a factor in how children felt. Module 8 commissioned an early years expert precisely because it was understood that this is a cohort of children who were, in large part, preschool and consistent with this, the list of issues includes how the development of children who were under five during the pandemic were impacted by the closure of early years settings and by the pandemic more generally.

That report does go beyond consideration of the impacts of closing nursery schools and other forms of provision, but Module 8 respectfully agrees with Core Participants that play is important and relevant and not just to those five and under. So it has sought evidence specifically about the restrictions on the ability of children to access play. But there are also important linked issues which the module will consider between the disruption of services, like health visiting, and the protection of infants and young children who are of course especially vulnerable to deliberate harm and neglect.

So evidence has been sought about this and, for example, the former safeguarding minister and former Secretary of State for Children and Families have been asked questions about the risks to which very young children were exposed during the pandemic.

My Lady, one of the Core Participants have raised the question of whether or not this module will consider antenatal care and I just wanted to be clear that that isn’t within Module 8 because it’s already been the subject and was considered in some detail in Module 3. So just to clarify that.

Module 8, as I’ve said, has sought evidence from local authorities because it recognises the greater risks that some children would have been exposed to at home because they were out of the sight of schools, neighbours, extended families and other services, and it is for that reason that it was considered important to understand more about how social work was provided during the pandemic. So, for example, were children at risk being seen in person? Did the use of technology to assess children risk signs and indicators of abuse being missed? That’s all work that relates to children of all ages but, my Lady, it goes to this broader question and, again, I suppose a theme that runs through Module 8, in circumstances where children were exposed to greater risks because of the pandemic, was there a diminution in the standards of protection and oversight afforded to vulnerable children?

My Lady, that leads to the next point. Where the pre-hearing note indicated that an issue was likely to be subsumed into another issue, that doesn’t mean it’s not going to be considered. A number of Core Participants, but we’re especially grateful to Coram for their observation on this, have expressed concern about the indication that the impact on children and young people in contact with the immigration system will not be subject to separate consideration. My Lady, rather that as the investigation proceeds to hearing, these children will be considered in relation to children in local authority care or as children from families who did not have recourse to public funds. In other words, considered as part of those children in society at most risk of marginalisation and socio-economic disadvantage.

I wanted to address any concern that migrant children wouldn’t form part of the module’s considerations because that’s not the intention. In line with what Coram set out in its submissions, Module 8 is proceeding on the basis that children in the immigration system may be amongst the most vulnerable children in society but it is right to say that the risks to which these children are exposed in relation to poverty, their accommodation, being in care, going missing from care, or the delays in the immigration system or financial support aren’t specific to the pandemic and I’m sure it’s well understood that Module 8 can’t be an inquiry into how children are treated within the immigration system generally.

It is well recognised that they are one of the groups of children in society for whom the pandemic would have compounded hardship. As the Coram submission implies, children living in hotels during lockdown would self-evidently be subject to a very significant degree of hardship and, equally, there will be many other children throughout the UK who were living in overcrowded, poor quality, unsuitable accommodation and, for all of these children, school closures and lockdown limited the opportunities for respite from those type of conditions.

So a number of Rule 9s have been sent by the Inquiry in relation to the immigration, including to the Home Office, Every Child Protected Against Trafficking, the Refugee Council, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons. They have been sent so as to deepen understanding of the impacts on these children.

Of course, again I re-emphasise that that’s all evidence that will be available to Core Participants during the hearing but I think where the line lies we don’t anticipate investigation in the hearings into the immigration system about financial support, delays and accommodation, and so forth.

My Lady, may I turn then in short order to some of the specific points that are made by some Core Participants about the list of issues. I’m not going to pre-empt every point, only those that it might be useful to foreshadow or to give an indication of thinking.

Clinically Vulnerable Families, the TUC, Long Covid Kids and Long Covid Kids Scotland, in particular, invite the Inquiry to focus on how schools can safely be kept open and, by this, we understand them to mean that the Inquiry should examine issues regarding infection prevention and control measures that could be introduced in schools, so, for example, whether ventilation could be improved or whether air filtration systems could be used to avoid school closures.

Again, my Lady, I’m sure that this is understood that Module 8 can’t be an inquiry into how the entire school system could be future proofed against a future pandemic, if that were possible, because of how extensive, time-consuming and technically reliant an exercise that would be and, of course, because of the expert evidence that would require. But it is recognised that it would be useful to understand what steps were taken to reduce the risk of transmission in schools through the introduction of infection prevention control measures, such as improving ventilation and, broadly, how these measures were decided upon and implemented.

In a letter to the Inquiry in March, Clinically Vulnerable Families, the TUC, Long Covid Kids and Long Covid Kids Scotland submitted that the Inquiry should consider instructing Professor Jim McManus as an expert in ventilation in schools. Having considered this, the module has sent a Rule 9 request for evidence to Professor McManus to obtain evidence about the work he undertook to improve ventilation in schools and to understand what broader lessons might be extrapolated from this.

The module’s also aware that there was a Department for Education-led pilot study to investigate CO2 monitors on ventilation during the pandemic and the module will ask the Department for Education some follow-up questions about CO2 monitors and air cleaning units as part of the process of finalising the Rule 9 statements with a view to understanding to what extent this forms part of future pandemic planning.

There was also a concern expressed that the draft development report didn’t make any reference to the developmental impact of Long Covid on children, despite an understanding that it would. My Lady, as you know, this report is concerned with children aged 5 and under. The experts have been asked whether they are aware of developmental impacts of Long Covid in children in this age group but, again, as I’ve already mentioned, it is intended that an addendum report from Dr Terry Segal will be provided.

My Lady, the Children’s Rights Organisations have set out some 16 issues which they invited you to add to the list of issues. I will try to deal with those in very short order, simply because it appears to us that they go to points of detail within the existing list of issues or issues which the module has gathered evidence about and which it might help to explain.

My Lady, in relation to babies and antenatal care, I’ve explained the position in relation to antenatal care. As you are aware, that child development report has been circulated to Core Participants. One of the focuses – and it is a point that will be investigated in Module 8 – is in relation to health visiting and the changes that were made to health visiting in relation to this group of children and, again, that’s because of the potentially serious ramifications of removing this sort of support to families during a pandemic.

In relation to children’s interactions with the criminal justice system and policing, evidence has been sought from the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing about the arrest and detention of children, including the treatment of children and young people in police custody. The module’s asked questions about court services across the UK to ascertain what’s known about the operation of the court system in relation to children, but I did just want to emphasise again, and this was said at the last hearing, that the conditions of detention in the youth custody estate during the pandemic are of real concern, and that there were delays so that children stayed in custody longer is of concern in considerable part because of these conditions and that is a reason why that has a particular focus in this module.

The Children’s Rights Organisations are concerned about the focus on education as set out on the list of issues, as opposed to the other services offered by schools but, my Lady, as I hope I have made clear, one of the reasons why the closure of schools to most children is a focus is precisely because of all of the other forms of support that schools offer to children and which is why we’ve gone, for example, to schools to understand how they sought to fill some of those gaps during the pandemic.

My Lady, in relation to how free school meals were provided, which is another suggested addition, Module 8 has asked a number of witnesses to deal with that about the impact of uncertainty about free school meals and the alleged flawed delivery of policies about free school meals. The module didn’t consider that this ought to be a particular focus during the hearing, even though there was controversy about free school meals during the pandemic and that there appear to have been problems with the mechanism of delivery.

If I can just say very shortly what the reasons for this are, the principle that free school meals should be replaced is one that was ultimately agreed to by Government. In relation to the holidays this may have been after Marcus Rashford’s campaign but, ultimately, the UK Government did agree to that provision. So, in other words, the principled position appears to have been resolved and it wasn’t contentious that the replacement of free school meals ought to have been made.

As to how policy is delivered or how the replacement of free school meals is delivered, it appeared to Module 8 that this was quite an operational issue that varied across the UK and that it wasn’t likely to be amenable, for example, to specific recommendations. It’s really for all of those reasons that we didn’t think that free school meals would be a focus during the hearings and, of course, because there are other competing issues that do need to be a source focus. So I hope that makes it clear.

The Children’s Rights Organisations suggest that a further heading ought to be “school reopenings”. I just wanted to say the list of issues expressly includes decisions to reopen schools and the factors which informed this and Professor Sir Chris Whitty, for example, has been asked to deal with this in relation, in particular, to September 2020 and so too have key decision-makers in government. The list of issues specifically includes education disruption in autumn 2020 covering the broad point that schools didn’t go back, as it were, to business as usual in autumn 2020.

It’s also suggested that Module 8 should add “readiness to leave school” to the list of issues. It wasn’t entirely clear to the module on reviewing this whether the Children’s Rights Organisations are pointing to specific evidence about children living in socio-economic disadvantage not feeling equipped to move onto employment or whether they are saying that there’s specific evidence about outcomes for these young people that ought to be taken into account, but their oral submissions may make this clearer.

In relation to school exclusions, the module is aware that Just for Kids Law issued pre-action protocol letters about this during the pandemic and that the Department for Education amended regulations in relation to exclusions to address those concerns. Module 8 is considering the issue of school exclusions within the impacts of education because of the trends that have been seen since the pandemic.

The suggestion is made that there should be specific reference to inequalities such as race, or racial disparities or socio-economic disadvantage but, again, my Lady, I think all I can do is emphasise, once more, that consideration of those children for whom the pandemic compounded disadvantage that they were already subject to has permeated our entire approach.

I think that links to the next point, that the Inquiry should further consider how the pandemic affected the living standards and quality of life faced by children during the pandemic. My Lady, in respect of that, we have sought evidence as to how the pandemic impacted upon child poverty rates and why, for example, the pandemic may have caused greater financial hardship to families asides looking at their income. So, in other words, what were the particular characteristics or things about the pandemic that added to existing financial pressures on the family.

Again, we see that as part of the broader picture of the impacts of school closures and lockdowns upon socio-economically disadvantaged children as well. So again, really important issues about digital inequality, a lack of access to resources, and the important evidence or suggestion that disadvantaged children fell further behind as a result of the pandemic as compared to others.

My Lady, as you will readily anticipate, a number of witnesses have been asked to address those issues but I think what’s beyond the module, for example, is to consider levels of financial support or policy decisions about, for example, universal credit.

In terms of online harms, it’s just to confirm that the term “exploitation” in the list of issues encompasses criminal exploitation as well. “Mental health” does include the health of children who were receiving in-patient care as well. There was expert evidence about that in Module 3 which will also be disclosed in this module.

It’s our submission that it wouldn’t be proportionate or enlightening for you to consider or hear evidence about all of the rules on inter-household mixing, which is another issue raised by the Children’s Rights Organisations, but rather, my Lady, you may wish to consider looking at this, for example, through the lens of whether or not using children’s rights impact assessments makes a difference. So taking those quite detailed broad areas and looking at them rather through that sort of lens.

The suggestion is also made, and made by Article 39 as well, that Module 8 should consider issues by reference to those rights within the UN Convention. My Lady, particularly Article 39 may want to explain whether they anticipate this – whether this would make any difference to the sorts of witnesses who would be called or practically what evidence is taken up or whether they are suggesting to you that that might form a potential analytical approach. They may want to say something about that in their oral submissions.

Just on Article 39, their submissions make the point that mechanisms in place to ensure that children and young people’s views are taken into account and that there are mechanisms in place for consultation with commissioners should be added to the list of issues. I just wanted to say on behalf of the module that they have picked up on an important point here and I wanted to confirm, if I may, that questions have been asked of ministers about, for example, not consulting the Children’s Commissioner in England prior to the enactment of the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, and that consideration is being given to the nature of consultation with children and how decision-makers can integrate the experiences of children as well. I’ll let, of course, Article 39 develop their submissions.

The Disabled People’s Organisation also raises specific issue about the modification of the duties on local authorities and healthcare bodies to secure provision for those children with education, health and care plans. Again, I just wanted to be clear that the Rule 9 request to the former minister, Ms Ford, includes questions about the contemporaneous evidence, that the Children’s Commissioner was raising what she described as the downgrading of duties on local authorities in respect of children with those plans. We have asked questions, for example, about how that decision was made or the assessment of impacts.

The Children’s Commissioner for Wales has asked questions about evidence being requested for the Welsh Government and, my Lady, I have already set out, for example, that we are taking up evidence from Kirsty Williams and Mr Vaughan Gething as well.

My Lady, very shortly then, just by way of update, so the Children and Young Voices report ought to be disclosed in the summer. It isn’t an expert report, it’s a report based on what children have told the Inquiry, so Core Participants aren’t being asked to comment on it. They have been provided with two of the three expert reports and will shortly get the education one. The Every Story Matters stream of work is progressing well and the report ought to be disclosed to Core Participants I think in early August. The Inquiry has received a very significant number of statements which are under review and will be disclosed as soon as they can be.

The Module 8 hearing will commence on 29 September and end on 23 October – I was about to turn to disclosure. I’m trying to get through this as quickly as I can so that I can let my learned friends make their submissions.

So disclosure. The Inquiry has disclosed 6,536 documents us the far, that’s over 142,000 pages of evidence, to Core Participants. It will continue to disclose tranches of material on a rolling basis. We have a really ambitious target of disclosing the bulk of material in the Inquiry’s possession and provided to us in the next few weeks by 4 August, but we will prioritise the disclosure of key witness statements and exhibits.

We will also carry on assessing the relevance of material relating to children that’s been provided to other modules. Material from other modules which the Module 8 team consider relevant to this module will be disclosed to Module 8 Core Participants.

We will move to provide a provisional witness list as soon as we are able to do so, again bearing in mind that the four-week window for evidence commences on 29 September 2025 and, of course, Core Participants will have the opportunity to comment on that.

My Lady, I think all I can do at this point is to reiterate that the Inquiry will overall be sitting for 16 days during that window. Of course, two of those days will be needed for opening and closing submissions, so we really invite Core Participants to take a proportionate and sensible approach when suggesting how many additional witnesses should be added and, if they do suggest adding additional witnesses, that they must indicate which witnesses they think could be removed from the list for obvious reason. It isn’t very helpful to suggest to us 10 or 15 witnesses who should be called without identifying others who they could replace or whose evidence isn’t necessary.

My Lady, I really apologise for rattling through this rather inelegantly but it is really important that you hear from the Core Participants and I really did want to just finish by thanking them for their help and their support. We really do have a common purpose with each other in wanting to deepen understanding of children and young people’s lives during the pandemic. It continues to matter very much and I wanted to reiterate again, on behalf of everyone, how much we’re looking forward to working with all of them constructively and collegiately. Thank you.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much, Ms Dobbin, and it definitely wasn’t inelegant. Thank you very much for your help.

Right, Mr Broach, I think you are going next.

Submissions on Behalf of Children’s Rights Organisations by Mr Broach KC

Mr Broach: My Lady, yes, grateful.

I appear for the Children’s Rights Organisations with Ms Twite. My Lady, the Children’s Rights Organisations, as you know, are five leading organisations in the field committed to championing children’s rights and addressing inequalities and structural discrimination as well as working directly with children and young people.

The CROs, as we’re known, are grateful, remain grateful for the grant of Core Participant status in this key module for children. We welcome the range of other Core Participants who have interest and expertise in children’s rights, noting, in particular, that of our fellow NGOs Article 39 and Coram.

We’re grateful for the open and inclusive approach taken by the Module 8 team in working with Core Participants both today and generally and, in particular, for the careful consideration that has plainly been given by the Module 8 team to our suggestions for amendments to the list of issues.

The CROs made written and oral submissions to the first preliminary hearing and have, again, provided written submissions for this hearing.

Our position remains, in summary, that the rights and interests of children and young people were routinely overlooked or de-prioritised throughout the pandemic and indeed were actively undermined at times, particularly when statutory entitlements were taken away or diluted.

The lack of focus on rights and interests of children we say was systemic, not an unfortunate oversight but resulting from a failure to embed their rights and interests in the centre of the machinery of government.

Thirdly and very importantly, my Lady, the impact of the pandemic on children and young people was not uniform. Certain groups suffered more, including babies, and we welcomed confirmation from Counsel to the Inquiry of the focus on health visiting in this regard; children and young people from black and racialised communities; looked-after children and children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities; and children living in poverty including those from the lowest income families.

The CROs remain particularly concerned about the position of groups of children who are so often invisible to decision-makers including the above groups, as well as children in contact with the social care system, the youth justice system and the immigration system.

Your Ladyship is aware that the context in which the pandemic occurred in the UK was not merely inadequate pandemic resilience and preparedness, as your Ladyship and the Inquiry found in Module 1, but also high levels of inequality and child poverty across the UK but particularly concentrated in certain areas.

In this context, the CROs continue to welcome the breadth and focus of the Inquiry’s proposed scope for Module 8 and the underpinning theme of inequalities which runs through it. We continue to urge the Inquiry to maintain the focus on children’s rights throughout the module rather than focussing on the institutions which exist to serve children. Further, we urge the Inquiry to maintain a focus on rights that are particularly important to children and young people themselves, such as the right to play, which was subject to severe, and we say at times disproportionate restrictions in the name of public health.

We welcome the specific recognition of the importance of play across the lifespan of children by Counsel to the Inquiry in opening.

Questions of the management and approach to Module 8 posed by the Inquiry are addressed in our written submissions. We briefly supplement those, if I may, my Lady, as follows. On the scope of Module 8, the CROs remain concerned to ensure that the Inquiry’s focus ranges significantly beyond the issue of school closures or restrictions and although, obviously, important, our position is that whether schools were open or closed was not the sole determining factor or even necessarily the most important factor in relation to outcomes for children and young people during the pandemic.

Many of the impossible vulnerable children were not in school or able to access school at the start of the pandemic and so, for example, we continue to say, as we did in our written submissions to your Ladyship on the first preliminary hearing, that Module 8 must scrutinise the brutal conditions for children in prison during the pandemic, the treatment of children in police custody, the increased criminalisation of children resulting from policing of lockdown rules, particularly those from black and other racialised groups, and the impact on children and young people who were not taken into custody but had other contact with the police during the pandemic.

Furthermore, some aspects of the general impact on the justice system more broadly, such as delays to cases being heard, had a disproportionate impact on children and none of this is directly linked to decision-making on school closure. Again, we strongly well the recognition of the importance of these issues in Counsel to the Inquiry’s opening statement.

In relation to schools, the CROs agree with other Core Participants as to the fact that the Inquiry should be considering not just whether schools closed or opened appropriately but the adequacy of the efforts to make them safe enough to remain open or to reopen more quickly and the adequacy of the efforts to mitigate the effects of school closures on children and young people. We also urge the Inquiry to look at what efforts were made to ensure that those children most at risk, who were allowed in principle to continue to attend school, were supported and enabled actually to do. Again, we welcome the recognition, in particular of that last point in the opening submissions by Counsel to the Inquiry and the steps taken by the Module 8 team in relation to those issues generally by way of evidence gathering.

In relation to readiness to leave school, our request is that the Inquiry considers adding this to the list of issues so that the impact of the pandemic and decisions taken in response to it on children’s readiness to move on to further or higher education, training or employment can be explored, including the disproportionate impact on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, so that recommendations can be made in this regard to inform planning for future pandemics.

We recognise entirely the practical limitations on the Inquiry’s time but we do consider that that point is one of significance that ought to merit specific investigation.

We remain keen to ensure that issues of poverty and inequality are interwoven across the list of issues for the module and we do continue to assert that the distinct impact of the pandemic on migrant children requires discrete consideration and support what Coram say in this regard in their written submissions. Our concern is not how the Inquiry structures its investigation but to ensure that the specific impact on migrant children of the pandemic and the response to it are taken properly into account.

We set out some specific amendments we requested to the list of issues at paragraph 5 of our written submissions, and we’re very grateful for the detailed response that’s been given to that by Counsel to the Inquiry this morning. As we said at the conclusion of that paragraph, the impact on children’s rights specifically should be considered, particularly by reference to those rights listed within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We support what Article 39 says in that regard, that each of the issues set out in the list of issues should be considered through the lens of the UK’s UNCRC obligations. We say that both as a matter of principle but also because we consider the CRC provides a helpful framework to structure the work of this module. We don’t suggest that this would change necessarily the witnesses called but we do recommend it as an analytical approach, as Counsel to the Inquiry posited.

As per our written submissions for the first preliminary hearing, the CROs would also welcome an express consideration of structural issues with government decision-making, as explored in Module 2, specifically in relation to children and young people. This could include: whether children were involved or consulted in decision-making which affected them; how advice about children was considered by decision-makers; whose role it was to consider issues impacting children during the pandemic; whether children’s rights impact assessments were completed and any negative consequences identified if they were not; the information that was provided to children about pandemic rules and regulations and whether this that clear and understood by them; and whether children should be immediately recognised as a specific vulnerable group in any future pandemic. In that regard, we support the proposed amendment to Issue 2 suggested by Article 39 in its written submissions for this hearing.

On the question of consideration of children across the different parts of the UK, we do emphasise that the pandemic impacted children in the different UK nations differently because of significant variation in the response from Government and the extent to which that response considered and respected children’s rights. We give the example that in Scotland, the Scottish Government took the decision to exempt children under the age of 12 from the social distancing measures, and later exempted all children, and we continue to say that these geographical variances need to be an important part of the Inquiry’s focus because the impact on children and young people was both from the pandemic itself but, perhaps more importantly, from the governmental response which varied significantly, as Counsel to the Inquiry noted.

So we welcome Counsel to the Inquiry’s earlier submissions about the disproportionate impact based on characteristics such as poverty but the headline variances and responses across the UK nations, we say, do need to be taken into account to a significant extent.

As to children’s voices and the Children and Young People’s Voices report, we agree with the submission made by Article 39 in writing as to the need to consider whether children and the children’s commissioners were consulted when relevant decisions were being made. We were very pleased to hear from Counsel to the Inquiry this morning that consultation with the Children’s Commissioner for England has been specifically raised with ministers.

We highlight our call for disclosure of the Children and Young People’s Voices report as early as possible and we do respectfully assert the need for the CROs and other Core Participants to have a reasonable opportunity to comment on this, and we would invite the Inquiry to reconsider any decision that there will be no opportunity for Core Participants to comment on this report.

We also repeat our submission in writing that children who wish to do so ought to be able to speak for themselves in the impact video prepared during this module. Final, my Lady, as to matters arising from other submissions, we do support the proposal by Article 39 that Rule 9 requests should be made to three key potential witnesses: the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families, the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and the Care Quality Commission. We heard what Counsel to the Inquiry said in this regard and we do understand and recognise the practical limitations but we agree with Article 39 that these witnesses have important evidence to provide to this module. I would invite reconsideration of whether Rule 9 requests could be made to them. Finally, by way of a procedural point, we have asked for consideration of whether a third preliminary hearing may be possible. If it is not, then we would welcome the provision of indicative dates for future further key steps, in particular a more precise date for the provision of the Voices report. My Lady, the CROs continue to look forward to assisting your Ladyship and the Module 8 team to ensure that the module is as effective as possible in achieving what Counsel to the Inquiry referred to as our common purpose. My Lady, unless I can assist further, those are the submissions for the Children’s Rights Organisations.

Lady Hallett: You have been extremely helpful, Mr Broach. Thank you very much indeed and, as you know but to reassure those whom you represent, I shall of course be considering with great care everything that you put in your written submissions. Thank you very much indeed.

Mr Broach: Much obliged, my Lady.

Lady Hallett: Ms King, I think you are going next. Can’t hear you.

Ms King: Apologies. Thank you, my Lady.

Submissions on Behalf of Coram Group by Ms King KC

Ms King: Coram remains grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the work of the Inquiry. Coram has provided what it hopes is a comprehensive response to the request for the Rule 9 statement for this module, authored by Dr Carol Homden CBE, the Chief Executive of Coram Group, who is willing to give evidence to the Inquiry orally if called upon to do so.

I’m also grateful for the acknowledgement from counsel to the Inquiry in respect of Coram’s submissions in relation to what it considers to be a very important area for the Inquiry to consider. As the Inquiry knows, Coram is the UK’s oldest children’s charity working as the Coram Group of Specialist Organisation. Its work directly engages with the issues that arise in the context of child immigration. Coram observed the impact of the pandemic on child refugees, asylum seekers, and the impact was significant.

It is noted that paragraph 7 of the document outlining the provisional list of issues that the Inquiry intends to explore includes the impact of the pandemic on children and young people in contact with the immigration system and at (a) whether there was consideration of children in families who had no recourse to public funds. At the same time, the Inquiry has highlighted that there is an overlap between families in need with no recourse for public funds and other families subject to socio-economic disadvantage, as well as an overlap between children in care and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It is said that the Inquiry has concluded that the issues in respect of unaccompanied minors will be subsumed into other topics that it has committed to focus upon.

Coram considers that that would be unfortunate and that it is unfortunate that, for what seemed like political reasons, children and young people in the asylum and immigration system are often treated as migrants first and children second. Coram contends that it would be a misstep for the Inquiry to repeat this pattern.

The Home Office does not record or estimate the numbers of undocumented people in the UK, meaning there is no concrete data on the numbers of unaccompanied child migrants in the country. However, at least one in every ten children in care has an unresolved immigration or nationality issue and those in children’s services are well intentioned and solutions orientated. It remains the case that those children face different issues and challenges that are distinct from others who are in care.

By way of example, children who have come to the UK to seek asylum are likely to have a history of significant physical and/or emotional and psychological trauma, have experienced bereavement, face a language barrier, have come a different education system, have no established friends of family to rely upon in the UK, have little or no contact with their own families, have reason to fear for the safety of their families and have been inculcated with cultural stigma in respect of seeking mental health support.

Such children may also face a culture of disbelief in relation to fundamental aspects of their identity, such as their age or country of nationality.

The issues for such children are stark. If a child achieves their majority while awaiting decisions about their immigration status, they will not be able to rely upon receiving housing, welfare support and ongoing local authority support in the same way as their peers who do not have immigration issues.

Since the pandemic exacerbated pre-existing decision-making backlogs within the Home Office, a greater number of children were left to become legal adults while waiting for a decision. In 2020 the average number of days that an unaccompanied child seeking asylum had to wait for a decision peaked at 550.

They are, in short, fundamentally more vulnerable in numerous ways and those vulnerabilities were compounded during the pandemic.

Children in care with immigration issues who did not arrive as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, eg those who were born in the UK but who are not British citizens, or were brought to the UK with family as children and have come into care for protection reasons, will also face these additional barriers upon turning 18. They are reliant upon the local authority to identify that they have an immigration issue and to resolve it for them before they reach majority. This means that unlike their British peers, if this does not occur they will find themselves unable to work, go to university, access welfare support, all of the necessary elements to build an independent life.

These issues were exacerbated during the pandemic when the necessity first to identify issues and, second, to act to ameliorate those issues expeditiously was either delayed or, in some cases, totally overlooked by overstretched and overwhelmed local authorities.

During the pandemic, my Lady unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, including those aged under 16, were disproportionately likely to be placed in independent and semi-independent accommodation when compared to other children in care. This served to increase their isolation and erect additional barriers to them accessing support.

Furthermore, independent accommodation for over-16-year-olds was widely unregulated putting this cohort at greater disadvantage. Moreover, unaccompanied children were the only cohort of children who were housed in hotels during the pandemic from 2021 to 2024. No other children in care were treated in this way. That meant that lone children as young 12 were placed in hotels, in some cases for several months, further isolating them at a time when normal socialisation was not possible, putting them at increased risk of trafficking and exploitation in addition to the impact upon their well-being and mental health.

During the time when hotels were being used to house unaccompanied children, 440 children are recorded to have gone missing. The Coram group is concerned that the Inquiry’s proposed refinement to Module 8’s scope means that this very serious matter will not be investigated.

A large number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were also age-assessed as adults during the pandemic and in consequence were inappropriately accommodated as adults under the Home Office policy assessing age. The number of age-disputed cases rose significantly in 2021 and a large number of these children were wrongly assessed as adults and in consequence placed at serious risk of exploitation, abuse and harm before being found to be children by local authorities. If this Inquiry does not take the time to shine a light on the experience of these children now, the opportunity to learn valuable lessons in order to prevent children from suffering similar experiences in a future situation where the government is again working under pressure will have passed by.

Unfortunately, that would be entirely reflective of the marginalised and subordinate position in which they were placed during the pandemic itself.

Children within asylum-seeking families were also housed in hotels known as contingency accommodation during and after the pandemic. In September 2021 there were around 1,425 family groups housed in contingency accommodation, which had risen to 1,808 by December 2021. Children in contingency accommodation were not usually supported to register for education or healthcare in the expectation they would be dispersed to longer-term accommodation within 19 days. In reality, they could be waiting for far longer, in particular due to policies restricting the movement of people during the pandemic.

Both families and unaccompanied children in hotels faced additional challenges, including a lack of Wi-Fi in some locations, lack of access to digital services to enable them to engage in online education, no designated space to learn where the whole family was living in one room, no space to play, and severe limitations on alternatives usually open to people, such as libraries, due to their lack of fixed addresses. Many of these children and young people had not been accepted into the care of any particular local authority, meaning they were denied access to the support that should have been provided.

In summary, the experience of asylum-seeking and immigration-experienced children in care can be significantly different to those of British children in care. With little overlap in their experiences, the pandemic served to amplify and exacerbate the differences. Similarly, children in families with no recourse to public funds faced significant additional issues to other families subject to socio-economic disadvantage. No recourse to public funds includes those both with in visas with a “no recourse to public funds” condition and those with no visas, undocumented people.

Families with undocumented adults are far less likely to approach local authorities for support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which places a duty on a local authority to provide services to children in need and their families, due to the fear of coming to the attention of immigration authorities.

As will be understood, undocumented individuals do not have the right to work or to rent property or to hold a bank account and, as a result, members of families where this issue occurred can end up in deeply unsafe and/or abusive living situations. By way of example, a lack of immigration status can be used as a form of coercive control over families, preventing them from leaving their abuser or reporting unsafe housing.

A joint report by Project 17, together with the University of Wolverhampton, the Public Interest Law Centre, ASIRT and the Migrants’ Rights Network found that there was a lack of information available to people with no recourse to public funds which was accessible, so that they could access support when the pandemic occurred.

More than 40 per cent of local authority websites had no information about no recourse to public funds at all. The research has also found that people who had no recourse to public funds struggled to access shelter, food and subsistence support during the pandemic and the most reported difficulty was being refused support from a local authority because of issues related to their no recourse to public funds status.

So, in conclusion, Coram considers that there are questions to ask and there are lessons to be learnt in relation to all of the additional difficulties faced by immigrant children, asylum-seeking children and unaccompanied minors during the recourse to the pandemic and is grateful for the acknowledgement from Counsel to the Inquiry in that regard. These are separate and distinct from the problems that arose from those experienced by children in the care system, who were not confronted by these compounding issues.

Coram therefore considers that these matters require a separate and distinct analysis and should not be conflated with the issues facing children generally or those faced by children in care in particular during the pandemic, important though they are, and Coram has identified some of those issues and explored some of those issues in the course of its Rule 9 statement. It is Coram’s contention that to fail to examine the problems which arose for migrant children at the time when Covid-19 took hold and informed Government policy would be a missed opportunity and prevent appropriate and timely planning for when the next pandemic or similar emergency occurs.

My Lady, those are the submissions made on behalf of Coram. It welcomes the opportunity to further contribute to the Inquiry, as I have already said, and it acknowledges that there is a breadth of issues that need to be explored but that issue to which I have referred is a particular focus given the scope of the intended inquiry of this Inquiry module.

Thank you.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed, Ms King. We shall – it’s all been extremely helpful and I am really grateful to everyone so far for helpfully sticking to their timing.

So you can have an extra three minutes’ break as a result of Mr Broach and Ms King and I shall return at 12.05.

(11.47 am)

(A short break)

(12.05 pm)

Lady Hallett: Ms McCabe.

Submissions on Behalf of Article 39 by Ms McCabe

Ms McCabe: My Lady, yes, thank you. I appear with Mark Twomey on behalf of Article 39. We’re instructed by Irwin Mitchell Solicitors and I have Katie Wilkins in attendance with me today. Article 39 continues to seek to ensure that the Inquiry considers the full impact of the pandemic on looked-after children and young people and those living in state and privately-run institutional settings. On behalf of Article 39, there are two topics I wish to address very briefly today. The first is Rule 9 requests and the second is the list of issues. My Lady, on Rule 9 requests, Article 39 of course acknowledges the breadth of Rule 9 requests which have already been made by the Inquiry and, indeed, the comments made by Ms Dobbin this morning. Article 39 is grateful that four of the seven public bodies that it previously suggested have now been issued with Rule 9 requests, and looks forward to considering those statements once they’ve been disclosed. But, notwithstanding the comments made by Counsel to the Inquiry this morning, Article 39 renews its invitation for the Inquiry to issue Rule 9 requests to the three remaining public bodies which it initially suggested at the first preliminary hearing. My Lady, first, and most importantly in my submission, Article 39 invites the Inquiry to issue a Rule 9 request to the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families. The Inquiry is aware that during the pandemic, Article 39 brought an ultimately successful judicial review challenge against the UK Government’s introduction of secondary legislation that removed or reduced 65 safeguards for looked-after children and others in contact with children in social care.

Article 39 is very pleased to see that the relaxation of those statutory safeguards by the introduction of the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations features on the list of issues and looks forward to assisting the Inquiry with its investigation into that area of government decision-making during the pandemic.

Article 39’s draft Rule 9 statement sets out their understanding of the key role played by the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families during the selective consultation conducted by the Department for Education prior to the introduction of the amendment regulations. The draft statement from Article 39 also makes some critical observations of the Chief Social Worker and it’s in that context, my Lady, that Article 39 invites the Inquiry to issue a Rule 9 request to the Chief Social Worker so that her role during the pandemic and, in particular, around the relaxation of statutory safeguards for children in contact with social care can be better understood by the Inquiry.

My Lady, secondly, Article 39 invites the Inquiry to issue a Rule 9 request to the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel. Article 39’s draft Rule 9 statement again includes data from local authorities collected by that panel on children dying and suffering serious harm. That data confirms that there were notable increases in children dying and suffering serious harm between 2020 and 2021, and so Article 39 invites the Inquiry to issue a Rule 9 request to that panel so that the data which it collects can be properly interrogated and so that the panel can be asked specifically about the number of looked-after children or children living in institutional settings who died or suffered serious harm during the pandemic.

In my submission, that is relevant to issue 5 in the list of issues: the impact of the pandemic on children and young people in relation to their access to social care.

My Lady, thirdly on Rule 9 requests, Article 39 invites the Inquiry to issue a Rule 9 request to the Care Quality Commission. Article 39’s draft Rule 9 statement references a 2022 report from the Care Quality Commission which said that the absence of suitable community mental health services was a particular concern for children and young people during the pandemic and that it had seen an increase in the numbers of children and young people being cared for in inappropriate settings while they waited for an in-patient bed.

It’s submitted that a Rule 9 statement from the CQC is relevant, my Lady, to issue 4 in the list of issues: the impact of the pandemic on children and young people’s physical and mental health and, in particular, whether there was sufficient support available to children for the treatment of mental illness.

My Lady, in respect of the list of issues, Article 39 is grateful for the detailed work undertaken by the Inquiry in producing the list of issues and Article 39 is particularly grateful that issue 5 is devoted to the impact of the pandemic on children in care and other children receiving support from Social Services. Article 39’s overarching submission, which you have already heard this morning, is that each of the issues in the list of issues should be considered through the lens of the UK’s UNCRC obligations.

The UNCRC, as the Inquiry is aware, is the most respected and comprehensive framework for children’s well-being and development, and Article 39 is very grateful for the confirmation this morning that the submissions that they have made in respect of the UNCRC have been given careful consideration by the Inquiry team and, in particular, for the confirmation that questions have been asked of ministers about not consulting the Children’s Commissioner for England around the enactment of the amendment regulations that I’ve already mentioned. That, in my submission, is crucial evidence for Module 8.

In response to Counsel to the Inquiry’s queries, primarily the submission of Article 39 is that the list of issues being considered through the lens of the UNCRC should be part of the analytical approach to the evidence. So in practical terms, the questions being asked of witnesses and the subsequent analysis of that evidence in the Inquiry’s report, that should all be done through the lens of children’s UNCRC rights, in Article 39’s submission.

Article 39 will take the comments away and give this further thought and, if we have any specific suggestions around the impact of a rights-based approach on the witnesses to be called, we will put those in writing to the Inquiry.

Finally, my Lady, Article 39 is grateful for the confirmation this morning that unaccompanied minors living in hotels during lockdown will be considered in Module 8. That’s an issue of key concern to Article 39 and they are also grateful that notwithstanding everything in Module 8 will be considered through the lens of school closures, and Article 39 endorses the submissions made by the Children’s Rights Organisations in that regard. So, my Lady, unless I can assist further, those are my brief submissions on behalf of Article 39.

Lady Hallett: Very grateful, Ms McCabe. Thank you very much for your help. Mr Gardner.

Submissions on Behalf of Children’s Commissioner for Wales by Mr Gardner

Mr Gardner: Good morning, my Lady, and thank you. I appear on behalf of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales and the Commissioner thanks the Inquiry for allocating her Core Participant status in this important module and the opportunity to make these submissions in the second preliminary hearing. The Commissioner considers and hopes that she and her office can assist the Inquiry in understanding the impact and challenges brought by Covid-19 for children and young people in Wales, as well as the processes for assessing and mitigating such impact. The Commissioner anticipates and hopes that the Inquiry will benefit from the learning and experience of the Commissioner on some of the practical arrangements, legislation and guidance which Wales had in place to protect the rights of young people and which may have benefited children and young persons across the UK, were the same measures in place.

Equally, the Inquiry will properly consider whether such arrangements, had they gone further or been followed more carefully, would have provided greater protections to children and young people and minimise the harm they experienced.

Indeed, as highlighted in the submissions from the Children’s Rights Organisations, there were important variations in the approach between the nations. The Commissioner agrees with the CROs that it would be particularly useful to analyse the different approaches across the governments of the UK and, as follows, the Inquiry should consider the impact of the different measures operating at the same time.

Respectfully, as the Children’s Rights Organisations highlight, an England-centric approach must be avoided and it is with this observation in mind it is pleasing to hear the CTI submission this morning that there is merit in exploring this line of inquiry.

The Inquiry has already received written and oral opening and closing submissions from the Commissioner when it heard Module 2B in Cardiff. Much of the impact on children and young persons in Wales was discussed in those submissions and those submissions were also summarise as in writing and orally for the first preliminary hearing in this module.

As such, the Commissioner does not repeat those points in this submission which focuses only on matters arising from information and requests since the first preliminary hearing.

My Lady, the Commissioner’s overall position is that she is grateful for the proposed list of issues and she agrees that the list contains the points which she will propose the Inquiry consider and has no substantive amendments to that proposed list. The Commissioner has been a long-standing advocate of decision-making such as it relates to children being approached through the lens of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and, with that in mind, my Lady, the Commissioner respectfully endorses of submission of a number of other Core Participants that when analysing decision-making, such as it relates to children and young persons, there should be a focus on or consideration through the lens of the UK’s UNCRC obligations.

My Lady, the Commissioner does make one discrete observation with regards to the list of issues and that is that the list includes at this point at paragraph 3A(viii) the issue of the inequality of access to education within the home and the types of factors which affected this, for example access to devices, to the internet, the availability of parental support and conditions within the home.

The Commissioner understands that the examples given are unlikely to be seen as an exhaustive list of examples and, on that basis, the Commissioner would invite the Inquiry, either by way of express insertion or an additional example, or at least by way of taking it forward as an issue under active consideration, for the Inquiry to consider the inequality of access to education brought about by language. The Commissioner would suggest that this point raises its head in two ways.

Firstly, during the periods of school closures, the Commissioner became conspicuously aware of the barriers to receiving an education at home for learners usually attending a Welsh-medium school. Welsh is, in Wales, of equal status to English, by virtue of Section 1 of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. The Commissioner is aware of a number of Welsh-medium learners who were required to or felt they had no option but to switch to learning in English when schools closed, during to parents not speaking Welsh or Welsh not being the language of their home environment.

Further, there were fewer educational resources available on line through the medium of Welsh. So families would have been solely dependent upon the provision from their school. For those whose first language was not Welsh but who attended a Welsh medium school, the impact was the loss of their wish and right to learn in their first or preferred language, as well as a general detriment to their access to education and ongoing development and maintenance of their Welsh language competence.

It has been reported to the Commissioner that the impact is that a number of learners have continued their education in English after restrictions ended as they had learnt in English for so long. This resulted in them having to choose between a step back in their education or the loss of education in Welsh and the cultural and future employment benefits of the same.

Secondly, under the heading of language, during the pandemic the Commissioner became conspicuously aware that children whose first language was not Welsh or English were also being more adversely impacted by the educational arrangements in place. As raised in Module 2B, and in the commissioner’s earlier submissions in this module, they experienced difficulties in following online lessons and faced a setback in language development. Further, in the foundation phase of returning to school there was a lack of clarity on when face coverings should be used in the Welsh Government’s operational guidance. Face coverings, in turn, presented an additional barrier to those learning from other languages.

The Commissioner fears that the measures put in place, or the lack thereof, relating to language has resulted in an ongoing educational and cultural negative impact for students who do not have English as a first language or who wish to be educated in Welsh. This is an impact to which the Inquiry, it is respectfully submitted, should devote some time.

My Lady, on the issue of evidence, the Commissioner has considered the provisional list of issues and the list of persons and bodies to whom a Rule 9 request for evidence has been sent. Understandably and properly, evidence will come from the Welsh ministers. The Commissioner does note and understand CTI’s observation that Module 8 will not replicate the same evidence in respect of each part of the UK; rather, it will seek to integrate evidence about children across the UK in a way which is proportionate and which best meets the scope of the module.

The Commissioner also notes and understands CTI’s observation that it is intended that the oral evidence in Module 8 will be structured in a way that enables consideration of how the decisions to close schools were made and other decisions relating to the consequences of school closures and lockdowns, and the Commissioner finally notes and understands CTI’s observation that although some ministers from devolved administrations gave evidence about school closures in modules 2A, B and C, further evidence has been sought from individuals in the devolved administrations, where necessary, about decisions to close schools and its impacts.

The Commissioner entirely understands and agrees that it is necessary to require evidence from and hear directly from the person who occupied the role of Secretary of State for Education in the UK Government during the pandemic to analyse the decisions made relating to school closures and education at that time.

The Commissioner again endorses and highlights the need to avoid an England-centric approach. Education is a devolved matter and decisions relating to school operations and ongoing educational provision were made by the Welsh ministers through the Minister of Education in conjunction or in partnership with Welsh local authorities.

With that in mind, the Commissioner is pleased to hear the Inquiry has made further Rule 9 requests to relevant decision-makers in Wales. In particular, Rule 9 requests being made to Kirsty Williams and Vaughan Gething appear entirely appropriate.

It is not lost on the Commissioner that the Inquiry will only sit for four weeks and it has a large amount of information and evidence as well as a long list of issues to consider. Accordingly, and inevitably, it must be focused and proportionate in the evidence it requires and it will be even more focused in the oral evidence it will hear.

The Commissioner simply asks the Inquiry to pause and consider, once it has all its written evidence that it has requested, which decision-makers it must hear from to ensure it properly scrutinises the decisions made, how those decisions differ across the UK, as well as the implementation of those decisions, the impact, and the ongoing monitoring of the impact of those decisions on children and young persons in all of the nations of the UK.

The Commissioner considers it likely and hopes the Inquiry will agree that some short oral evidence from decision-makers in Wales who made relevant decisions at the time will be necessary.

My Lady, in conclusion, the Commissioner, once again, thanks the Inquiry for the opportunity to provide evidence and to act as a Core Participant and she hopes that the discrete issues she raises will assist the Inquiry in its direction, evidence gathering, and ultimately lead to positive recommendations to improve the lives of children and young people in Wales and across the rest of the UK.

My Lady, I’m grateful if I can assist further.

Lady Hallett: Thank you, Mr Gardner, very helpful. Mr Wagner.

Submissions on Behalf of Clinically Vulnerable Families by Mr Wagner KC

Mr Wagner: Thank you and good afternoon.

I act for Clinically Vulnerable Families and I am assisted by Hayley Douglas and Lameesa Iqbal, and we’re instructed by Kim Harrison and Shane Smith of Slater and Gordon.

CVF in this module speak for two groups of children. First, children who are themselves clinically vulnerable to Covid-19. This is a small group relative to the 65 or so million people living in the UK but still a sizeable group of many thousands, and between March 2020 and October 2022, 88 children died from Covid-19. This number may well have been higher had many children of Clinically Vulnerable Families – sorry, many parents of clinically vulnerable children not kept their children away from school.

In the first year of the pandemic alone, there were 6,338 paediatric Covid-19 admissions and, of those admissions, 259 needed paediatric intensive care.

Those, my Lady, are not small numbers and it’s important they are not undervalued because of their relative size compared to the adult population who were adversely affected.

The second group CVF speaks for is the children who lived in households with clinically vulnerable people. That’s a much larger group involving millions and it’s that second group that was very important to decision-making around school closures and those two groups are the two that CVF speaks for.

I’m going to make two broad points: first on safety and second on that group of children who lived in clinically vulnerable households.

So on safety, restricting attendance at schools is plainly going to be the main focus or a main focus of this module and, like others, I will refer to this as closing schools although, obviously, as you know, schools were never actually fully closed.

The important issue at this stage, a few months before the hearing, is what lens will the Inquiry investigate that issue? My main task today, my Lady, is to try and persuade you and your very hard-working team to look at this issue in a slightly different way than it appears we think you are doing. Essentially, the decision to close schools involved the balancing of two competing risks: on the one hand, the risk of harm to children for not being in school, for example, missed education, the loss of a place of safety and support for many vulnerable children, and that was set against the risk of harm to children and wider society of greater transmission of Covid-19 which, it was assumed and it was correctly assumed, would lead to the death and serious illness of many, particularly from clinically vulnerable people and clinically vulnerable families. Of course, clinically vulnerable staff as well were part of that equation.

An exposure to the virus would lead to the NHS being overwhelmed. That was the assumption and that was predicted by SAGE as likely to happen within ten days at the point where the decision was made to close schools. So, to put it crudely, the harms of the virus versus the harms of children missing in-person education: those are the balancing factors which this module will be considering.

Unlike full-scale lockdowns, there’s a long history of schools closing or being very limited in attendance during disease outbreaks. On the most basic level, school attendance is often limited during pandemics and epidemics because people rightly assume children in close proximity can spread diseases, as every parent knows when their children go back to school after the school holidays.

That means that many parents will not send their children to school, regardless of whether the school is formally open or not and that, of course, was already happening on 18 March 2020 when the Prime Minister announced schools would mostly become closed. Attendance had already dropped significantly. That also reflects a historical picture. In the US, during the 1918 flu pandemic, some states closed schools and others did not but in the states that did not, up to 50 per cent of children were kept away. That’s all important context. It’s not necessarily in the gift of the Government to decide which children go to school during the pandemic. Parents will also be making their own safety assessments.

It’s important, therefore, not to engage in wishful thinking. It’s possible to say now, even before the oral hearings and much of the written evidence, that limiting in-person education had a deep negative and, in some cases, lasting impact on children. There were hidden harms as well as obvious ones but we should be wary of reaching too simplistic a conclusion based on this: that school closures were bad for children and, therefore, there shouldn’t have been school closures. I’m not suggesting the Inquiry is anywhere close to reaching that kind of simplistic conclusion.

The reality is that in a pandemic school closures will often happen de facto because the public think it isn’t safe to send their children to school, and that’s particularly people who are clinically vulnerable because they don’t want their children bringing the virus back to their home.

If you accept that, then the question becomes: how can we do two things at once, keep the vast majority of children in in-person education and at the same time keep them and their families safe from the virus? We say that’s the right question for Module 8 to ask: how can you keep children in school safely? In order to answer that question, the Inquiry must explore a related one. Were schools not safe enough to remain open and, if not, why not? If you can answer that question, you might be able to keep many or even most children at school, even during a pandemic. But if you can’t answer that question a future government will probably discover that parents simply won’t send their schools (sic) whatever the policy and whatever they are saying.

It’s therefore very important to CVF that questions of whether schools were safe and how to make schools safe in future become central to this module and that the Inquiry requests and obtains the evidence to properly investigate it. That’s why CVF wrote to the Inquiry alongside the TUC, Long Covid Kids and Long Covid Kids Scotland, to request the instruction of a public health and safety expert to consider how school attendance restrictions may be avoided in a future pandemic by improving infection prevention and control measures.

We are grateful that a factual Rule 9 has now been related from Professor Jim McManus and we say that’s a good start but we also say that more will be needed.

Respectfully, we challenge Counsel to the Inquiry’s approach that it will be too extensive and time-reliant to consider this issue in a broad sense because it has been considered in another modules. The Inquiry in Module 3 instructed multiple experts to consider how health settings can be made safer in a future pandemic. So why not instruct experts, even the same experts – why not the same experts – in this module, to consider how to make schools safe?

The conclusions of the IPC experts in Module 3 show that there was nothing inevitable about public buildings being unsafe. Poor air quality is a choice. Buildings can be made safer by using IPC measures, such as mechanical ventilation, air filters, high quality FFP2 and 3 masks, air quality monitoring and other innovative technologies, as your Ladyship has heard me say many times in this Inquiry.

There are also less invasive tests now which are possible to use by children, even children with special educational needs and disabilities, which would allow for rapid detection and isolation of a small number. All of that needs to be a central focus of this module or the Inquiry risks concluding that taking children out of school was bad but not understanding and not communicating to the public how it could realistically be prevented in future.

We note that an addendum report has been requested by an existing expert in relation to Long Covid. Why not request one in relation to IPC?

The UK risks remaining vulnerable now and going forward, whether to new waves of the existing virus or to future pandemics and even more so if a future pathogen poses a greater risk to children. Failing to consider this issue properly risks, to borrow from the TUC’s excellent submissions, planning for the wrong pandemic. School closures do not have to be an inevitable response to a pandemic. In reality, they will be unless something is done now to improve the safety of buildings children are educated in and that is one of the key pieces of wisdom that this the Inquiry could offer the British public.

With all that in mind, as well as proposing the instruction of an expert, we suggest, respectfully, two changes to the provisional list of issues. Number xxvi says: what mitigations were put in place to prevent the spread of the virus and what impact did that have – did they have on children’s well-being to include the reduction in extracurricular activities which impacted children from poorer families disproportionately?

The concern we have about that line is that it is going to consider the negative impacts without considering the positive impacts of mitigations.

We also propose that under school safety a new line should be added: what safety measures were put in place to prevent the spread of the virus, whether those mitigations worked, and what infection prevention and control measures could be put in place in future to make schools safer? And, secondly, the impact of any failures to put in place adequate safety measures on children and their families.

My second and final point is that the Inquiry must avoid adopting a Peter Pan view of childhood. It’s important to put the impact to children of school closures in its proper context. Children do not exist in a Peter Pan world where they spend all day and night together without adults. A large percentage of children live in a household with a clinically vulnerable person, whether vulnerable to Covid-19, due to their age or underlying health condition, or something else.

The likelihood of living with a clinically vulnerable person is even greater amongst certain ethnic minority and lower socio-economic groups who are more likely to live in multi-generational households. The sheer number of children in this category, together with the central role that they played in the balance of risk, which led to government decisions on schools, would make any investigation that leaves them out of the equation somewhat artificial.

If children are sent to unsafe schools there is a significant risk of them bringing Covid-19 or some unknown future pathogen home to their vulnerable relatives. That is the risk equation which must be grappled with.

CVF respectfully suggests this key issue is missing from both the CTI’s note and the provisional list of issues.

For some clinically vulnerable families this is not theoretical or future or speculative because the failure to put in place measures to reduce airborne transmission in schools means some children in clinically vulnerable families remain effectively excluded from education even today, and on that we do ask that when considering the ongoing impact of certain children not going back to school that should include children from clinically vulnerable families who have remained out of school, as well as the others that were mentioned and are important.

The Government’s living-with-Covid policy framed risk as a matter of personal responsibility, shifting the greatest burden of responsibility onto those facing the highest risks, but public health should not rely on individual actions but collective protection. When it’s safe enough for the most vulnerable, it’s safe enough for everyone. And that’s my point. It’s extremely important to CVF and the people it represents that the difficulties they faced, and continue to face because of failures to make schools safe, are properly reflected. We therefore respectfully ask that in 4D in the list of issues, the distinct challenge faced by clinically vulnerable children, that is supplemented by “and children in clinically vulnerable households”.

To conclude, this is one of the Inquiry’s most important modules and it’s, of course, important to identify harms to children caused by their removal from in-person teaching. But those harms are already fairly well known and accepted. In order to have a genuine, lasting impact, we ask that Module 8 also focuses on school safety. Thank you.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Wagner.

Ms Hannett.

Submissions on Behalf of Long Covid Groups by Ms Hannett KC

Ms Hannett: My Lady, by way of introduction I appear on behalf of the Long Covid groups. In this module that’s Long Covid Kids and Long Covid Kids Scotland. I’m assisted by Ms Iengar and instructed by Ms Ryan of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors.

Long Covid Kids was established in September 2020 by the families of children who did not recover from Covid-19. They now support over 11,000 children, young people, their families and carers. Long Covid Kids Scotland acts under the umbrella of Long Covid Kids and supports approximately 300 families and carers in Scotland.

Together, my client organisations speak for the interests of the almost 66,000 children who have suffered from Long Covid symptoms for more than 12 weeks. They look to the Inquiry to answer two key questions: first, whether in the face of the long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 the Government discharged its legal duties to safeguard children’s rights to health and education; and second, how the Government should respond in the future to the potential harm a novel virus poses to children and young people.

My clients are grateful to have been granted Core Participant status and look forward to assisting the Inquiry in its important work in Module 8. We also extend our thanks to Counsel to the Inquiry for the helpful note and list of issues prepared in advance or this hearing and for the update that was provided this morning.

The Inquiry has our detailed written submissions and we know the Inquiry will have those well in mind. In the light of the very welcome confirmation this morning that the Inquiry has commissioned an addendum report to the earlier Brightling and Evans reports on Long Covid in adults to focus on paediatric Long Covid, I now only need to focus on one issue, my Lady, and that is the draft list of issues.

Turning to that, we raise two core points in respect of the list of issues and of the approach of the Inquiry that that list of issues reflects. The first core point concerns the impact of Covid-19 and Long Covid on the physical health of children and young people. My clients welcome the investigation of Long Covid as a principal aspect of the pandemic of the physical health of children and young people but we do, however, urge the Inquiry to keep the following five points firmly in mind when considering the physical impact of Covid-19 on children and young people.

First, Covid-19 causes severe physical harm to children and to young people. It is not, contrary to the view of the Governments of all four nations, benign for that cohort. Research to understand more about the effects of SARS-CoV-2 on children continues but we do know that Long Covid is a complex, multi-organ disease which causes physiological, social and developmental harm. Our written submissions give the example of a recent study from the United States that found that children and young people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection are at a statistically significant increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes.

Second, the numbers afflicted are growing and they are significant. Long Covid affects more than three times the number of children and young people affected by paediatric diabetes and this highlights by comparing the rates of Long Covid in children with its prevalence in adults is both meaningless and inappropriate.

Third, health and other services to respond to the needs of children with Long Covid remain inadequate in all four nations. There are still no specialised paediatric Long Covid services in Scotland and, of the limited paediatric Long Covid services available in England, several are currently closing. The Long Covid groups welcome the observations of Counsel to the Inquiry this morning about regional variation and, for our part, we emphasise that there was and remains wide variation in terms of access to Long Covid services and support and, of course, variation in access to services gives rise to significant variation in impact of Long Covid itself.

For that reason, the Long Covid groups join Mr Broach, on behalf of the Children’s Rights Organisations, this morning in calling for the Inquiry to probe the reasons behind the different approaches taken across the United Kingdom.

The fourth point, my Lady, is that very existence of Long Covid Kids and Long Covid Kids Scotland highlights the gap in support and care for children with Long Covid and their families. Their campaign to raise public awareness of the risks of Long Covid for children and to fight for appropriate services remains ongoing.

Fifth, the harm caused by Covid-19 and Long Covid to all sufferers has been unacknowledged. I have made the submission to you on more than one occasion that those with Covid-19 and Long Covid have faced disbelief, denial and minimisation of their symptoms and, in respect of children, we will say that the evidence goes further and shows that certain State bodies deliberately minimise the physical harm caused to children by SARS-CoV-2 and Long Covid, and in due course we will invite the Inquiry to make that finding.

In summary, therefore, the Inquiry must ensure that it too does not minimise the physical and developmental harm caused to children and young people both by Covid-19 but also by Long Covid.

In considering the physical harm caused by Covid, it’s vital the Inquiry listens to the voices of children who have been affected. One such voice is Jay who, on 1 April 2022 delivered a handwritten letter to the Prime Minister with other members of Long Covid Kids. Neither the Prime Minister nor anyone from his office met the children nor responded to their letters. Jay’s letter said this:

“I am 11-years old and I have had Long Covid for nearly 15 months after getting Covid in January 2021. It’s been a very difficult journey for me. Having Long Covid means I can’t do anything I used to enjoy, like sports, school, walking my dog and even caring for my bunny. I used to go to dance classes, swimming gymnastics, karate, I used to go on long walks with my family. I was able to hang out with my friends, go to sleepovers and I was also able to do a full day at school. I can’t do any of that now and I need a wheelchair as I can’t walk long distances. My arm has started to hurt just writing this letter. Now I struggle to do two hours of school. It doesn’t feel like school any more. I haven’t done a full week or a full day in months. I used to be so excited about the future but now I don’t know what it will be like.

“Here are some questions I would like to know the answers to. Why isn’t there more research into Long Covid in children like me? Will you try to help me and the thousands of other children with Long Covid to get better? Why won’t you or the Government make schools safer and decrease the amount of Covid? I am worried about more children getting sick. I’ve missed a year of school, how will you help me to catch up and how will it affect my future? I can’t even write this letter properly because my hands hurt, so I had to type and I need my Mum to help me a lot because typing this letter has taken me three days so far.”

The second core point we wish to emphasise in respect of the draft list of issues concerns the need to ensure that Long Covid is considered throughout the issues raised in the Inquiry and is not siloed as only a matter affecting the physical health of those children it afflicts. The experiences of the members of Long Covid Kids and Long Covid Kids Scotland shows that the affects of Long Covid touch all aspects of their development, their ability to attend school, to engage in sport and hobbies and to socialise with their friends and families. Long Covid touches on all aspects of a child’s life.

To this end, we endorse the submissions made by other Core Participants, in particular the Children’s Rights Organisations, the TUC and CVF, who call for an investigation of the safety of schools and educational settings to reduce the transmission of airborne viruses such as SARS-CoV-2.

The Inquiry heard the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, describe schools as “terrific reservoirs of virus” in Module 2. We do say that making schools safe now is necessary to prevent more children acquiring Long Covid but also to ensure that children who have Long Covid already do not face the additional risk of reinfection and thus the worsening or recurrence of their Long Covid symptoms.

This therefore remains a current issue as well as a matter for a future, as yet unknown pandemic. For these reasons we welcome ILT’s confirmation that Jim McManus will provide a Rule 9 statement regarding his work on ventilation in schools during the relevant period and look to the Inquiry to provide robust recommendations for the improvement of IPC measures in all educational settings.

In paragraph 14 of our written evidence, we identify a limited number of additions or amendments we invite the Inquiry to make to the draft list of issues and we invite the Inquiry to make those changes. In conclusion, my Lady, we look forward to assisting the Inquiry the Module 8 hearings later this year and, in particular, in helping the Inquiry to answer the two key questions I raised at the outset of my submissions. Unless I can assist further, my Lady, those are our submissions.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed Ms Hannett. Very grateful. Mr Jacobs.

Submissions on Behalf of the Trades Union Congress by Mr Jacobs

Mr Jacobs: My Lady, these are the submissions of the Trades Union Congress. Our written submissions and these oral submissions focus on what my clients see as the pitfalls of this module’s narrow focus on restricting attendance at schools, the school closures point, and this module being a missed opportunity to properly examine and learn the lessons of how to keep schools fully open safely.

We raise it as relevant to the list of issues, to the evidence gathered and to the issues to which attention is given in the hearings and we note that we speak as one voice with several other of the Core Participants.

By way of summary of the concerns as to the focus on the decisions to restrict attendance at schools, first, we detect a creeping presumption that to restrict or not to restrict school attendance is always a meaningful choice but that presumption is a false one. One of the few sure things about the next pandemic is that the characteristics of the virus will be different to the last. The characteristics of the virus precipitating the next pandemic, in terms of transmissibility and lethality and other physical consequences, may well be of a nature that unrestricted attendance at schools is either not at all realistic or not at all necessary.

So in that context, anxious and narrow focus on the issue, in the specific context of Covid-19, is really an exercise in preparing for the last pandemic, rather than the next.

Second, though restricting school attendance quite clearly has significant and adverse impacts on children, an overly simplistic steer from an inquiry that those impacts weigh heavily against restricting attendance risks being positively harmful. Now is not the time to rehearse some of the considerations examined in Module 2 as to the epidemiological management of a pandemic. However, it is clear that effective pandemic response in terms of low deaths and limiting long-term impact across society, including for children, may best be served by early action. Firmer and earlier non-pharmaceutical interventions may lessen the impact in the wrong run and in our written submissions we point to the example of New Zealand which acted early with an early lockdown and, ultimately, far less disruption in schools.

As we have observed elsewhere, in the Covid-19 pandemic the seeds of chaos in schools were sewn with a keep schools open at all costs approach going into the autumn term of 2020 and that resulted ultimately in a series of late, chaotic and counter-productive decisions in relation to schools over the following year.

In pandemic response, “bold and early” may be the way forward but “bold and early” may be frustrated by school restrictions either being taken out of the toolbox or being put in the category of absolute last resort.

Third, in focussing so closely on the impacts of restricting attendance, the impact of the counterfactual of unrestricted attendance has a tendency to be lost. As in our written submission, it has been estimated that 13,000 children in the UK were orphaned by the pandemic. Children are not insulated from death rates across society or the local hospital or care home being overrun. Keeping schools open at all costs may have costs for children also. It’s the Peter Pan point made a few moments ago.

There are also, of course, the physical consequences of infection on children in terms of fatalities, hospitalisations, Long Covid, all of which will inevitably be different and possibly even greater in the next pandemic.

Fourth, keeping schools fully open as safely as possible is surely the most worthy and most important of objectives. It maximises the opportunity for unrestricted attendance and limits the harms to both pupils and staff of being fully open in the midst of a pandemic. There is also the point that parents exercise choice, as well as governments, as the Clinical Vulnerable Families observe, and parents need to have confidence that schools attended by their children are safe.

Casting one’s mind back to the Covid-19 pandemic, safety in schools was such a vexed issue. Masks were variously of no use or of some use, were an optional requirement, a mandatory requirement, or not advised; an array of social distancing measures were prescribed in corridors, in classrooms, in bubbles of various shapes and sizes; restrictions on attendance were visited on different year groups at different times, sometimes on a rota basis, sometimes attendance was staggered; little was done to address the physical limitations of school buildings in the context of social distancing; ventilation was rarely that forefront notwithstanding its importance; schools were turned into mass testing centres at a moment’s notice; exams were cancelled in a manner that exacerbated the harms of doing so.

Those various issues were characterised by Herculean efforts of teachers and other staff, by uncertainty and often harm for children, and of mixed and dubious effectiveness.

That raises a question: in the next pandemic will safety measures in schools suffer from the same unfortunate characteristics? The TUC and its affiliated education unions are concerned that they will and that this module is not focused on addressing it.

One answer to these observations might be that Module 2 was a module concerned with decision-making and this, in contrast, is an impact module focused on the impact on children. That does indeed appear to be the approach but the consideration of decision-making in education in Module 2 was limited and this module is the last and important opportunity to address these issues.

Ms Dobbin King’s Counsel touched on these issues this morning and one of our observations was that this “cannot be an inquiry about how the entire school system can be future-proofed against a future pandemic.”

My Lady, respectfully, we say that is problematic. Is it not the case that future-proofing against a future pandemic is precisely why we are here and why this Inquiry exists? The observation really demonstrates our point. We say that focussing narrowly on restricting school attendance doesn’t really help the education sector prepare for the next pandemic but, the Module 8 team says, that is not what this module is about.

In other modules this Inquiry asks unashamedly and in fulfilment of its terms of reference: how can the health sector be better prepared for the next pandemic? How can the social care sector be better prepared for the next pandemic? How best can we as a nation be prepared for the production of vaccines and for a test and trace system? And it should, in our submission, also ask: How can schools and the education sector be better prepared for the next pandemic? And that must include how to operate them safely.

We do welcome the evidence being gathered on ventilation as described by Ms Dobbin this morning, but we say that is not, in itself, sufficient. Broader expert evidence is necessary which studies and brings together the evidence and considers the lessons to be learned and on a far broader range of issues than ventilation, though that is important, and we say that there needs to be a committed focus on these issues at the hearings.

My Lady, those are the submissions for the TUC.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Jacobs.

I endorse the comments made by Ms Dobbin earlier. All the submissions have been extremely interesting and constructive and I am very grateful to everyone and I shall obviously consider what I’ve heard today and the material submitted in writing before reaching any conclusions, having also consulted the Inquiry legal team.

Ms Dobbin, I think that concludes our business for this morning.

Ms Dobbin: My Lady, it does unless I can help you further with anything.

Lady Hallett: No, I am very grateful to everybody. Thank you very much indeed.

(12.56 pm)

(The preliminary hearing concluded)