Than attempting to preserve individual privacy, some question whether it will reflect on the inquiry at all. i think you have to distinguish between the trust the public might have or not have in the participants in an inquiry, which obviously include in most cases the government, and the inquiry itself. the purpose of a public inquiry is to act fairly and proportionately in order to undertake the task it s been given. i think if it does that and it communicates clearly how it s being done, then the public ought to be able to assess what the public think about the process. it may be that it s the next steps from the covid inquiry team, not the government, which dictate how impactful its findings will become. that was kate there. we re joined now by michael mansfield kc, who s represented victims at several previous inquiries including
Frustrated with this approach and unless it really is just a question of someone in the cabinet office is deeply committed to this interpretation of collective responsibility it s a mystery why they re doing it. they re doing it. kerstin, on the ruestion they re doing it. kerstin, on the question of they re doing it. kerstin, on the question of what they re doing it. kerstin, on the question of what baroness - they re doing it. kerstin, on the l question of what baroness hallett can do on this, can she start the inquiry as planned and let this play out or does this delay the start of the inquiry? out or does this delay the start of the inquiry? she can. it s a matter for the inquiry the inquiry? she can. it s a matter for the inquiry whether the inquiry? she can. it s a matter for the inquiry whether they - the inquiry? she can. it s a matter for the inquiry whether they thinkl for the inquiry whether they think this is for the inquiry whether they think this is material for
That michael is absolutely right. we are considering at this stage - are considering at this stage disclosure are considering at this stage disclosure to are considering at this stage disclosure to the are considering at this stage disclosure to the inquiry, . are considering at this stage l disclosure to the inquiry, and are considering at this stage - disclosure to the inquiry, and so the question disclosure to the inquiry, and so the question there disclosure to the inquiry, and so the question there is, disclosure to the inquiry, and so the question there is, is - disclosure to the inquiry, and so the question there is, is it- the question there is, is it relevant? the question there is, is it relevant? what the question there is, is it relevant? what the - the question there is, is it- relevant? what the government the question there is, is it relevant? what the government must prove relevant? what the government must prove in relevant? what the government must
At least one of his cabinet, the energy secretary grant shapps, seems not to be on board with that, saying this morning he believes the covid inquiry should be given whatever they wa nt as evidence gathering begins in two weeks time under the chairmanship of the right honourable baroness dame heather carol hallett. today s move from the government is believed to be the first time ever that ministers have taken legal action against an inquiry their own government has established. so where does all of this leave the covid inquiry? here s kate. what s relevant to the uk s pandemic response? that s the issue at the heart of the judicial review the government announced today. the cabinet office is challenging whether it should have to disclose what it considers unambiguously irrelevant material to the upcoming public inquiry, including parts of borisjohnson s whatsapp messages and diaries. the chair of the covid inquiry, baroness hallett, however, has previously found that the refusal to