For obvious reasons there are repeated calls for either a Public Enquiry or a Royal Commission to examine what has happened in terms of the Government’s response to Coronavirus, starting from 2016 when they chose to make little of a pandemic planning exercise right up to when we might consider at least the first part of the coronavirus pandemic under control.
I have absolutely no doubt that there needs to be a speedy and effective review of what has happened. Mistakes have been made. Some of them have been political ones and some of them in terms of the advice given by professional staff such as behavioural scientists, public health and health service officials. Beyond that there are questions to be asked about how the Government has responded in terms of transport, business, the voluntary and community sectors as well as others. Those need to be left aside to begin with. Mistakes there will largely have been made because of problems within the health activities which must be the prime focus of enquiry.
I think that a formal enquiry would be a bad idea. Let’s just look at the outputs and outcomes of the relatively recently Levenson enquiry into the press excesses. This was not a great success. The first enquiry took about two years. It cost a fortune. It was adversarial with a range of people and organisations hiring barristers and seeking to defend their actions rather than get at the truth of what happened. There was supposed to be a second enquiry which never happened.
Above all there were little real world outputs from the enquiry that did take place. The only reason that there have been minimal improvements in the honesty of the press, and there were only modest improvements, was the worries that the media had over compensation payments. A toothless industry controlled watch dog was put in place which hasn’t barked but purred when there have been transgression reported.
So if not this sort of enquiry what sort would I recommend? I think we should look at the way that local government does things. Every three years most councils in England voluntarily open themselves up to external review. The review team are experienced councillors and local government officials with sometimes some knowledgeable outsiders. They come in to look at a self-assessment made by the Council of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
The team then go into the area for four days and talk to people inside the council, the community and partners and assess the self-assessment. It’s a process not of inspection which raises hackles but is a family activity with critical friends using their nose to have a look at what’s going on. They produce a report and the Council produce an action plan which the LGA check after a year and to which the LGA provide outside support if required.
Occasionally, there is a more drastic approach of compulsory intervention. In the case of seriously failing authorities like Northamptonshire the Government enforces both inspection and remedies through a similar peer team of highly experienced local government officers and members.
That’s what I would like to see the Lib Dems calling for nationally. A quick review by international experts which would not seek to examine every last document and decision in detail but would look at the broad sweep of what has happened using their knowledge of having lived through the same problems themselves. Clearly we would be looking for a team from a global body, such as the World Health Organisation and MPs and officials from countries like S Korea and Germany who had successfully dealt with CV better than we had.
This would be none-political because none of the participants would have a political axe to grind and would be simply to bring their experienced nose to bear on what had happened here. They could then produce a report against which the Government and all its organs could produce an action plan which would build on the strengths of what had been done but attend to the weaknesses.
This is a tried and trusted approach which works and has been used at a national level before. The Council of Europe send peer teams to look at democratic processes in member states which reported to national Parliaments and the LGA has assisted with peer reviews of Commonwealth Countries.
I believe that this is a better way of getting quick responses whilst things are fresh in people’s minds and the desire to make necessary changes is still what the people of the UK want. I hope that is the approach that the Lib Dems take.
* Cllr Richard Kemp CBE is Lord Mayor of Liverpool for 2024-2025.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Geoff Reid
Tom Bailey
Leonora Scipio
Kira Collins
Daniel Walker
13 Comments
“looking for a team from a global body, such as the World Health Organisation”
I think when this is over there will be an international enquiry in to the behaviour of the WHO and exactly what it’s leadership have been up to. Lets not involve them.
The out come of any UK enquiry will depend on the atmosphere around it, if it is clear there is a partisan divide with different sides looking to score points off each other then we will see little value from it. If there is a mature culture surrounding wanting to learn from what has happened then there will probably be more value.
How we get that culture is anyone’s guess, the media show no interest in being considered and the level of hatred and opportunism it politics doesn’t look to make that more likely. This is not a legal form problem.
I too am cynical that much will be learnt that will then be acted upon. As has already been said, there is history on these things. Even when they are investigated, they are often suppressed at worst or downplayed at best.
What I’m wondering is whether it might be a good for some members of the public to be able to directly pose one question to one person at the core of policymaking or at the response. Similar to Question Time, but without opponents also present. Eg. I would like to speak directly to the head of the CQC about social care preparedness, staffing levels etc and whether any concerns about these were raised with the government in a timely and determind fashion.
I can see difficulties with this open approach but I wonder whether it might help the average person feel as if there is at least some accountability without everything being couched in ‘political speak’ .
A very persuasive article but is it not a Public Inquiry (not Enquiry) which would be set up under the 2005 Inquiries Act.
Well reasoned and argued. I thought Wd appeared flat-footed and basically wasted his opportunity at PMQs yesterday.
More to the point is making sure that the country is kept safe. If the Tory 1922 start putting wealth before health pl don’t slavishly support it.
A formal Public Inquiry will be a massive long grass exercise. And by the time anyone gets round to doing anything about it, most of the politicians and top civil servants and bureaucrats will have moved on. Meanwhile we might have had another global pandemic!
What I would like to see is pressure for disclosure of what is happening now. The press conferences are little more than daily party political broadcasts. We actually need some way of finding out what is happening now. What advice is really being given?
There is no guarantee that this will be “over”. We need to have a means of discussing the possible futures as things develop.
If there cannot be a vaccine at least we can encourage a discussion on how to strengthen people’s immune systems. Or at least avoid weakening them. This of course particularly applies to older people.
We do not need to involve the government, as their clear focus at present is a PR exercise.
To be honest, I don’t care what form the investigation takes so long as:
1. It is truly open and transparent: for instance, I would be wary of an Inquiry headed by a government appointee. It must have the powers to call any witness with penalties if they don’t attend or don’t answer with the whole truth;
2. It must be able to hear evidence and report quickly. The trouble with Public Inquiries is that they get bogged down for years. The cynic in me makes me think that’s deliberate in the hopes that the passion on the issue for most people will have died down;
3. I worry about whether this government in particular would be prepared to have its actions looked at by any international body.
Whatever the means, the actions of the government in response to a pandemic that will have caused or contributed to the deaths of 20+ thousands of people must be examined to find out what worked, what didn’t and whether there was any negligence. The examination must be in public and the conclusions published in full.
I won’t hold my breath while I wait.
the trouble with Richard Kemp’s proposal of a local government style ” external review.” is that very few po;le know about them or hear the result. there needs to be a peedly eIng=quiry into the arogant blundering self-satisfied incompetance of this governme’ hadndling of the crisis
Sorry, pressed the wrong button:
The trouble with Richard Kemp’s proposal of a local government style ” external review.” is that very few people know about them or hear the result. There needs to be a speedy Inquiry into what appears at the moment to be the arrogant, blundering self-satisfied incompetence of this government’s handling of the crisis. It should be done in the full glare of publicity, and the progressive forces in the country should get together to challenge what will be a smooth PR operation by the Tories to pass the blame onto someone else.
The article of the Sunday Times 19th April is lethal and very detailed in itself. One hardly needs an official investigation except that it would be official. The Levenson Enquiry was killed by the government by killing the second part so there was no proper reform as a result. I do not know if the behaviour of this government could be labelled criminal, but it led and will go on leading to a higher numbers of deaths. Could any minister be charged with manslaughter?
“The article of the Sunday Times 19th April is lethal and very detailed in itself.”
This article is quite damning about the media response to that article:
Corporate journalists are in full panic mode after the Sunday Times’ exposé.
This expert reaction is also very pertinent to the question of an enquiry and the assessment of the government’s decision making:
expert reaction to Sunday Times article about the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic
I think when this is over there will be an international enquiry in to the behaviour of the WHO and exactly what it’s leadership have been up to.
Not sure what you expected from the WHO…
The WHO v coronavirus: why it can’t handle the pandemic
Caught in a superpower struggle: the inside story of the WHO’s response to coronavirus