The Covid inquiry: What we’ve learnt so far, and what’s next

The first part of the process is well under way, writes Sean O’Grady, but there’s still much more evidence to come from those in the hot seat during the pandemic

David Cameron and George Osborne have already been cross-examined by the inquiry (Getty)

After a lengthy period of consultation and groundwork, the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, under Baroness Hallett, is now well under way, and proceeding at a remarkably fast pace. The first module, on pandemic preparedness, has already taken evidence from, and cross-examined, former prime minister David Cameron, his chancellor, George Osborne, and the minister responsible for emergency planning, Oliver Letwin. Oliver Dowden, Jeremy Hunt, Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance are up next.

The module “assesses if the pandemic was properly planned for and whether the UK was adequately ready for that eventuality”, says the preamble on the inquiry’s website. “This module will touch on the whole system of civil emergencies including resourcing, risk management and pandemic readiness. It will scrutinise government decision-making relating to planning and seek to identify lessons that can be learnt.”

Cameron, Osborne, Letwin: are we reliving the coalition years?

Yes, because the inquiry is trying to assess how well prepared the UK was for a pandemic of the kind that hit us in 2020. Or, rather, how well protected the country might have been if things had been done differently, with hindsight but also taking into account what was known at the time.

It’s fair to say that public health emergency planning had been going on since the relevant legislation was passed under the Blair government in 2004, but the inquiry has to draw a line somewhere, and the arrival of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2010 seems as good a moment as any.

What have they got to say for themselves?

There’s a mixture of candour and defiance. Cameron and Osborne defend their economic policies at the time in familiar terms, saying that it was necessary to cut public spending and reduce the size of the state in order to fix the public finances and cut the deficit. That, in turn, would – and indeed did – make the economy resilient enough to be able to withstand hundreds of billions of pounds in extra borrowing when Covid arrived. Along the way, they stress, spending on the NHS was “prioritised”.

Even so, the health service suffered from cuts in relation to the demands being placed upon it, and Cameron, Osborne and Letwin concede that errors were made in the system of planning for future pandemics, though innovations such as the National Security Council, established in 2010, are seen as useful reforms.

Cameron hints that he wasn’t made sufficiently aware of the danger of a Covid-type emergency by officials. Osborne and Letwin both state that a lot of time was spent preparing for a pandemic that didn’t happen, rather than the one that did happen. Letwin adds that there was no minister properly focused on such planning, as it was a small part of his more general policy work.

The most disturbing revelation so far is that, after the EU referendum in 2016, some of those working on pandemic planning were redeployed to carry out contingency work for a no-deal Brexit (though some argue that this did strengthen supply chains when Covid came).

How will this play out politically?

Rishi Sunak must feel as though he has “the hand of history” on his shoulder so much that it’s haunting him. Among other things, he’s having to deal constantly with Boris Johnson’s legacy of lies, the damage Liz Truss wrought on the public finances, and Theresa May’s occasional attacks on his migration and policing policies, as well as Grenfell and the Windrush scandal – and now, a public suddenly reminded of the long era of austerity presided over by Cameron and Osborne.

All of these historical expeditions add up to an impression that austerity failed, that the Tories achieved nothing of note except bungling from scandal to crisis, and that the party has been in power for a very long time indeed. They thus erode the notion that Sunak’s administration is all shiny and new, and not in fact a continuation of the Conservative or Conservative-led government that has been in power for almost a decade and half – longer than the New Labour ascendancy.

“Time for a change” becomes an even more potent slogan when so much time is spent looking backwards at Covid, Brexit and the austerity cuts.

Who’s next for a grilling?

Tomorrow, Wednesday, will see Dowden and Hunt under examination. Both are now at the top of government, as deputy prime minister and chancellor respectively, but Dowden was a junior Cabinet Office minister and Hunt the long-serving (2012-18) health secretary during a crucial period.

Whitty and Vallance, “the two gentlemen of corona” as they were dubbed, will be offering their views on Thursday.

Will Johnson be called to speak?

Yes. Indeed, as prime minister throughout the pandemic, his evidence will be key. The inquiry probably need not spend much time on Partygate, given the number of investigations that have happened already, but it will be in possession of much of the evidence from the Sue Gray report, various police investigations, the privileges committee inquiry, and Johnson’s journals and other communications (provided the inquiry can prise them out of the hands of the Cabinet Office).

On top of all that, it is rumoured that a volume of memoirs is to be published later this summer. But Johnson’s appearance is some way off, and probably after the next general election, no doubt to the relief of the present prime minister.

Will Sunak be called up?

Again, yes. Sunak was chancellor for the pandemic, so to speak, and won much praise at the time for his decisive actions to support the economy, such as the furlough scheme, and for his compassionate, sincere, personable approach to the crisis. More recently, though, he has been criticised for his Eat Out to Help Out project, on the grounds that it wasted public money subsidising trips to pubs and restaurants that would have happened anyway, and because it may have speeded up the spread of Covid.

Recent tranches of evidence such as WhatsApp messages may reveal more about Sunak’s attitude to lockdowns and, to put it crudely, a Treasury attitude that might look like putting money before human life.

How long will the inquiry go on for?

At least until 2027 and possibly longer. The key thing, politically, is how the modules, published evidence and cross-examinations of senior members of successive Conservative administrations reflect on the party’s reputation for competence and compassion. On balance, it’s probably a small negative as the Tories enter the “long campaign” for the 2024 general election.