As I noted on this blog in 2020 and 2021, the management of the Covid epidemic was a tale of unmitigated disaster in the UK.
It was not just the failure to prepare that began with Osborne and Cameron's disastrous austerity and continued under the equally disastrous healthcare policies of Jeremy Hunt in his unusually long period in charge of policy on that issue. It was also the fact that Boris Johnson was not in any sense fit for office at any time, and most especially when this crisis emerged, and that he surrounded himself with colleagues of even less ability, from Matt Hancock to (lest we forget it), Rishi Sunak.
The choices that these criminals (I use the word because I think they are criminally responsible for deaths) were reckless. The consequences have been seen and measured in tens of thousands of deaths.
Many were ordinary people not protected when we failed to lock down soon enough.
Tens of thousands more died when hospitals were cleared of elderly people who had Covid into care homes, which then led to the infection of thousands more, many of whom died when they could and should have been protected.
And then there was the straightforward political choice to follow the maxims of the far-right Great Barrington Declaration, which utterly bizarrely suggested that the way to manage a deadly virus was to let it spread far and wide and create herd immunity without considering the cost in terms of the number of lives lost on the way. Rishi Sunak was the greatest exponent of that thinking. We got 'eat out to help out' as a result: it too cost thousands of lives.
And now we have the Covid inquiry that is about to start. Its Chair, Lady Hallett, is taking her brief very seriously. And it is wide-ranging. This list is just from the start of the issues to be addressed:
Aim 1. Examine the COVID-19 response and the impact of the pandemic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and produce a factual narrative account, including:
a) The public health response across the whole of the UK, including
- preparedness and resilience;
- how decisions were made, communicated, recorded, and implemented;
- decision-making between the governments of the UK;
- the roles of, and collaboration between, central government, devolved administrations, regional and local authorities, and the voluntary and community sector;
- the availability and use of data, research and expert evidence;
- legislative and regulatory control and enforcement;
- shielding and the protection of the clinically vulnerable;
- the use of lockdowns and other ‘non-pharmaceutical' interventions such as social distancing and the use of face coverings;
- testing and contact tracing, and isolation;
There is a lot more that follows. The list was prepared by the government. The Inquiry is being regulated under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005.
Today we will see the most exceptional situation develop. Lady Hallett has used her powers under section 21 of the Inquiries Act, which says:
21 Powers of chairman to require production of evidence etc
(1)The chairman of an inquiry may by notice require a person to attend at a time and place stated in the notice—
(a)to give evidence;
(b)to produce any documents in his custody or under his control that relate to a matter in question at the inquiry;
(c)to produce any other thing in his custody or under his control for inspection, examination or testing by or on behalf of the inquiry panel.
(2)The chairman may by notice require a person, within such period as appears to the inquiry panel to be reasonable—
(a)to provide evidence to the inquiry panel in the form of a written statement;
(b)to provide any documents in his custody or under his control that relate to a matter in question at the inquiry;
(c)to produce any other thing in his custody or under his control for inspection, examination or testing by or on behalf of the inquiry panel.
Her request is for all the unredacted documentation relating to ministerial decisions made relating to Covid. That is, of course, a mountain of information. It includes all their WhatsApp messages, emails, notebooks, minutes and other data. And she wants it, without exception.
Ministers are horrified, even though given the terms of reference of the inquiry the request hardly seems surprising. It is strongly suspected that they will appeal. Section 21 provides them with the means to do so. It says:
(3) A notice under subsection (1) or (2) must—
(a)explain the possible consequences of not complying with the notice;
(b)indicate what the recipient of the notice should do if he wishes to make a claim within subsection (4).
What amuses me is section 4:
(4)A claim by a person that—
(a)he is unable to comply with a notice under this section, or
(b)it is not reasonable in all the circumstances to require him to comply with such a notice,
is to be determined by the chairman of the inquiry, who may revoke or vary the notice on that ground.
The applicant, judge, jury and executioner in this case is Lady Hallett.
The penalty she may impose if she decides she wants material and is refused it is an unlimited fine and up to two years in prison.
Most lawyers on Twitter seem to think the government has no chance of winning a judicial review on this issue: after all, they would effectively be bringing an appeal against their own decision to grant these power over these papers so why should a court stand in Lady Hallett's way?
That they are contemplating this says one of four things.
The first is that they really are stupid enough to think that their objection might succeed.
The second is that the matters that these papers will disclose are truly damning of them, and some of them might anyway be heading to spend time at His Majesty's pleasure.
Third, it could be both these things.
And fourth, more cynically, ministers think that they (and the right-wing media) can use this for another populist attack on 'woke judges' that can be used to intensify division in society which, they think, will rebound in the government's favour.
Most at risk are very clearly Johnson, Sunak, Matt Hancock and then health minister Helen Whately, who apparently objected to the transfer of the elderly from hospitals to care homes but then oversaw it. Oliver Dowden is now in the firing line for being at the Cabinet Office, which is refusing the data.
Lady Hallett has to win this case. Those under investigation in an inquiry cannot then decide what is admissible evidence. Nor, in my opinion, can they claim a human rights defence of privacy: they were undertaking a job as holders of public office. But more important than these legal principles is the fact that Tory neglect in public office has to be exposed and those responsible made accountable. We cannot see such negligence again, most especially when it cost so many lives.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Good that you have rehearsed the disaster that was – and still is – the government’s handling of the pandemic. Can’t disagree that when government explicitly rejects scientific advice knowing it will result in more death – must be criminal.
But as regards the Inquiry itself – it doesnt seem to be putting the practical experience and evidence of bereaved families up front – for example allowing ultra right opinions equal status tothe lived experience of sufferers, and limiting the numbers of the latter giving evidence.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/11/covid-19-inquiry-deaths-uk-boris-johnson-lockdowns?CMP=share_btn_tw
If previous inquiries are anything to go by it will take years – so will be to late for the guilty men to be held to account.
Let’s see
Every word of this.
I’m reading “Johnson at 10“ by Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell at the moment. It has a lengthy chapter on the Covid episode which is already a damning indictment. One of the slightly galling things revealed is how much worse things would have been without the influence in 10 Downing Street of Dominic Cummings, someone I regard as a contemptible dilletante who knows nothing about science. He did, unlike others, have an inkling what he didn’t know and took steps to engage with suitably informed people and do some shin kicking without which things might have been even worse (and I say it as someone reluctant to give him any credit; he is a maniac who should never have been anywhere near 10 Downing Street let alone someone who controlled what information the Prime Minister did or didn’t see).
I can add that the effects of the incompetence were felt in Ireland too, both via the Common Travel Area and NI. In general Ireland handled the pandemic better, locking down earlier eg, but was adversely affected by inability to jointly apply island-wide policies on such things as school openings. We had Arlene Foster repeating “we have to follow the science” When translated it meant we must loyally follow the bovine stupidity dictated to us from London, no matter what. A majority in NI decided otherwise but many died who need not have. They would have been, disproportionately, older and more pro-union.
I’m afraid that nearly every major official ‘enquiry’ of the last few disastrous decades has done little to give any confidence that such procedures will actually find either the truth, or lead to the guilty parties bearing any real consequences whatsoever. In this context the appearance of independent determination by Lady Hallet is as welcome as it must be panic inducing among those at the centre of this ghastly set of Tory governments. In the context of the exemptions and evasions evident in the Grenfell Tower enquiry, I had already penned the following.
“THE STEAMIE STATE
If you think the odd Royal Commission
washed grubby things whiter than white,
what gives rise to the growing suspicion
that judge-led enquiries just blight
public anger, and plunge truth in night?
Lawyered-up, powers thumb their derision;
fees mount and the years pass in flight,
till redaction, inaction, excision
ensures that conclusions don’t bite –
and fresh deaths leave but few to requite.
If, when doing the state’s dirty laundry,
you suspect its staining’s not slight –
Bloody Sunday, Iraq, where’s your quandary? –
grant witness exemptions by right
and foul bundles will bleach overnight.
The pandemic’s wash cycle’s in sight!”
Perhaps Hallet is going to break the cycle. Let us all hope so…. and strength to her arm!
I share your last stated hope
And thank you
It’s a lot to cover.
Brexit has few defenders these days, most people are worse off, two Prime Ministers have resigned in disgrace. To expose their incompetence and corruption such as the costly track and trace and the awarding of contracts to cronies, where they didn’t even deliver, must surely be the coup de grace.
I hope that. at least, a preliminary report can be published before the next election.
The preliminary report is The People’s Covid Inquiry led by Michael Mansfield. Not only is it a preliminary report, but he has also sent letters to the Met.
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/12/01/this-lawyer-thinks-boris-johnson-could-be-prosecuted-for-misconduct-heres-why-and-how/
It was in just about every mainstream paper at the time, but appears to have been forgotten about now.
Well…. Lady Hallett has given a very small extension for the production of all the documents – two days only, and not the requested full week. That looks like a well-informed lawyer knowing what can’t be cooked up in two days, while showing herself reasonable. Yet the inquiry has now also required a sworn statement of some kind – the Grauniad says, a “witness statement from a senior civil servant, verified by a statement of truth” on ‘whether the Cabinet Office holds the information or more details about them’.
Seems like the screw is actually beginning to be turned – and not the Lady!
Perhaps the ones stuck in the ‘steamie’ this time are going to be the ones most in need of a wash.
The defence that is being mounted to withhold the information, according to The Independent (from Bloomberg investigations); is that the Cabinet Office is relyng on legal advice argues the data should not be disclosed because it would “undermine the principle of collective responsibility.” So it seems that an informal convention of the inner working of the Executive should have precedence over legal Statute, it seems.
The underlying principle, I suspect is rather an instinctive enveloping fog disguising the appeal to Crown Immunity which, somehow or other, must cover anything at all. I trust Hallett pursues this matter, if blocked; it was legislation drafted by the Government; which seems eager to establish “redaction” now, as a Natural Right.
Hallett however represents the interests of the families of the 226,000+ people who died from Covid. I know where my priorities, over this matter rest.
The best thing about this news for me is that it addresses the real failures that occurred surrounding Covid – namely the over-enthusiastic and indiscriminate austerity the Tories practiced, the relaxed and too sceptical attitude of Johnson’s leadership – namely his Greenwich speech and his non-show at Cobra meetings, plus the cynical way they sent the elderly home and then claimed there had been a ‘protective ring around care homes’ – one of the biggest bare faced lies that has ever been told by a British government to the public in recent times.
As the mourner of a relative lost during the epidemic, the acts of commission and omission are more salient to me than a few parties – I can tell you that.
Sorry about that, PSR.
However, it was well known that the government would only be brought kicking and screaming to an enquiry, which is why Michael Mansfield set up the People’s Covid Inquiry in 2021, as a proper court. All the witness statements and information have been sent to the Hallett enquiry. The people involved believed that it would be easy to twist statements so long after the fact , and make witnesses believe that they were mixing truth with fiction, particularly now we know that lots of those affected suffer with long covid.
Here’s the report for those who wish to read it in full.
https://www.peoplescovidinquiry.com/inquiry-report
The government was asked if they wanted to contribute, but guess what, they didn’t even respond by saying no.
I’m not sure what there is to be sorry about, nor what the ‘however’ means JenW.
Whatever means there is of fighting back and making sure that people remember what a complete arse the Tories made of Covid is worth doing, as one of the biggest threats to confronting misused power is forgetting.
If this report – thanks for the link – has been sent to Hallett, then forgetting is hopefully not on the menu and the notion amongst the weak-minded people who voted for him that Johnson ‘did his best’ can be effectively shattered.
Party-gate and all that is simply a symptom of bad government – but the results of austerity, BREXIT and Covid management is what REALLY has hurt the people. I remember Clare Fallon of C4 News interviewing people at a care home talking to loved ones through windows and one woman describing it to Fallon all as ‘shit really’ on prime time TV.
But what it also tells us that the Tory party of 2010 was an odd collection of varied political beliefs – at first we had the atavistic vengeful austerity mob, then the BREXITEERS got some wind in their sails and took over effectively making it impossible for those Tories like May who were a bit more principled and capable, and then when Covid came along, those who had to deal with it found to their cost that the austerity-mongers in their own party had undermined their ability to fight it. So, we’ve had a party of factions in power really, effectively sabotaging each other.
That is the political lesson we have been taught I think by the Tories and by the outcomes of what key policies we’ve had – austerity, BREXIT, Covid – and the incompetence and short sightedness of it all.
The verdict?
The Tory party can never in my view be trusted again. But this will be forgotten, I’m sure, over time if we allow ourselves to do so.
Sorry that a relative of yours died during the pandemic, PSR.
I agree the ‘However’ was unnecessary.
I suspect a fifth possibility may simply be delay. Fight every request, lose every paper, accidentally delete files, request every extension. Make sure that nothing appears before 2025.
However, the irrelevance argument seems unusually silly. It is not the job of the party under investigation to decide what is or is not relevant. They need to get back to the tried and tested practice of misplavcing or acidentally deleting files. I have a vision of the floor of the North Sea being littered with government issue phones that were accidentally dropped ovrboard.
I am sure a lot of phones will be lost…..