WHAT’S THE STORY?
WHEN Prime Minister Boris Johnson finally announced in Parliament earlier this week that there would definitely be a full public inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic, he still managed to upset people.
For he made it clear that it would not even start until the spring of next year, saying “that it would not be right to devote the time of people who are looking after us, who are saving lives, to an inquiry before we can be absolutely – much more – certain than we are now that the pandemic is behind us”. The World Health Organisation (WHO) special envoy David Nabarro said that the date was distant and “people ought to be doing studies now”.
SO WHY THE DELAY?
THE start date has been criticised by experts and MPs from all parties. The pressure group Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice said “lives are at stake with health experts and scientists warning of a third wave later this year”. They added: “A rapid review in summer 2020 could have saved our loved ones who died in the second wave in winter.”
Former Labour lord chancellor Lord Falconer hit the nail on the head when he opined that delaying the start to next year would probably mean that the report would not be available until 2024 at the earliest, and the Tory government would be “confident that it won’t come out until after the next election”. As he is giving himself back the power to call elections when the Prime Minister wants to, Johnson would be able to go to the polls before any damage is done by the inquiry – and there will undoubtedly be damage to the Government.
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT?
BECAUSE the WHO Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response inquiry says so.
Chaired by the former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a former president of Liberia, the panel found that the pandemic was “a preventable disaster”.
The panel found that WHO itself was at fault, but also that after the public health emergency was declared on January 30, “too many countries took a ‘wait and see’ approach rather than enacting an aggressive containment strategy”. Sound familiar, Boris?
It wasn’t just in the UK. The panel concluded: “Co-ordinated, global leadership was absent.”
READ MORE: Boris Johnson announces public inquiry into UK's handling of Covid pandemic
WHAT SHAPE WILL THE INQUIRY TAKE AND WHO WILL CHAIR IT?
MOST likely it will be a judge-led public inquiry similar to that which is currently taking place into the Grenfell Tower disaster. Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s inquiry really is getting to the facts of the disaster and is seen as much better than the Leveson Inquiry.
WHAT WILL IT INQUIRE INTO?
WE will only find out when the terms of reference are published, probably at the same time as the chair is appointed.
The WHO panel summed up its first focus as an inquiry into “years of warnings of an inevitable pandemic threat were not acted on” which led to “inadequate funding and stress-testing of preparedness, despite the increasing rate at which zoonotic diseases are emerging.” That will do for starters.
Issues which will surely be investigated will include whether ministers followed scientific advice on lockdowns and other decisions. What support was provided to frontline workers? Why did so many people die in care homes? How were contracts for personal protective equipment awarded to those with links to government?
The “big spend” of £37 billion on the NHS Test and Trace programme, run by the Conservative peer Dido Harding, will be a hot topic. The grisly phenomenon that is “long Covid” is certain to be probed, and there will be a host of other subjects.
WHO COULD BE WITNESSES?
BORIS Johnson says he will testify. On oath, too. Hopefully some members of the public and NHS workers will be called to say their piece. Experts aplenty, including members of the SAGE team of scientists, will give their views.
One potential witness who must certainly be called to give his evidence is Dr Phil Hammond, MD in Private Eye, who has written more sense about Covid-19 than just about anybody.
His latest tweet sums up the situation about the delayed inquiry: “One lesson from the pandemic is that you can’t wait for evidence to arrive. The WHO were not in favour of border controls or masks at the outset. UK advisers did not think border controls, masks or Test and Trace would work. Pragmatic countries tried them all to see which would work.”
WHAT SHOULD SCOTLAND DO?
WE should have the Scotland-specific public inquiry promised in the SNP manifesto. This is not an issue for a four-nations approach.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel