Who has most to fear from the public inquiry into Covid?

Political reputations could take a hit but key players are no longer in office, says Sean O’Grady

Personal messages left for those who died during the pandemic on the National Covid Memorial Wall (Getty)

The independent Covid-19 public inquiry has begun its preliminary hearings, just over three years after the first cases were identified in the UK. It has heard submissions from barristers representing families bereaved by coronavirus based in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and an outline of the organisations who will submit evidence in main phases of the inquiry.

What has happened so far?

At this stage, the inquiry is setting out how the process will be run. With a large number of interested parties, documentary and sometimes technical clinical and demographic data, organisation is itself a formidable logistical challenge. And as well as being complex and highly charged, it is also complicated by the parallel Scottish inquiry.

At this week’s hearing it emerged that the World Health Organization was “unable” to provide written evidence, while lawyers complained that the process of making “thousands of manual redactions” to government papers submitted to the inquiry is slowing down the process of disclosing information to bereaved families. This could result in the inquiry being delayed for one month even as it is just getting started.

There will be further preliminary hearings next month, after which a timetable for the more substantive public hearings for this year and possibly next will be drawn up.

Baroness Hallett, the retired judge leading the inquiry, has stated: “We shall gather evidence throughout the year and I hope to begin public hearings in 2023. I will do everything in my power to deliver recommendations as soon as possible, to ensure that in any future pandemic, the suffering and hardship many of you have experienced is reduced or prevented.”

Politically, who could find themselves exposed?

Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, Dominic Cummings, Rishi Sunak and, collaterally, the Conservative Party will all be under close scrutiny. Also at risk is Jeremy Hunt, who in his role as health secretary in the years before the pandemic was partly responsible for contingency planning.

Welsh and Northern Irish leaders during the pandemic – Mark Drakeford, Arlene Foster and Michelle O’Neill – will be covered under the UK inquiry, while the actions of Nicola Sturgeon and colleagues will be examined mostly by the separate Scottish inquiry.

Given the vast scope of the inquiries and the huge number of decisions taken on a daily basis, there is bound to be some damage to the political reputations even without taking hindsight into account. Much will depend on how far the likes of Johnson and Hancock will be able to say they were merely “following the science”. How far the chief medical and scientific officials, such as Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Jonathan Van Tam support the politicians’ version of events, and vice versa, will be fascinating to observe.

However, when the inquiry was announced Johnson was still prime minister, and thus at the centre of the debate. Now that he, Hancock and Cummings have departed the scene, the immediate political fallout from any revelations will be less acute than if they were still running the country.

What are the key questions?

There are many but may include whether restrictions were imposed too late or relaxed at the wrong time and, in retrospect, whether the measures were proportionate; whether preparations and contingency planning such as stockpiling of personal protective equipment, ventilators or drugs was adequate; whether economic support was well-directed and properly spent; whether relations between Whitehall and Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast and local councils worked well; the impact of policies on mental health, education, domestic violence; the impact on care homes, older people or groups such as ethnic minorities; the efficacy of Test and Trace.

Is there any upside for Rishi Sunak?

The prime minister was chancellor throughout the crisis and praised for his radical policies to support the economy when the public was fearful of going out to work; business loans, tax breaks and the furlough scheme probably saved millions of jobs and avoided a worse economic slump. Critics argue that the resultant borrowing and debt was unnecessary and left the economy weaker in the longer run, and this will also be examined. The inquiry is unlikely to come to any firm conclusion about such a hypothetical proposition.

Will it cover Partygate?

No. This has already been the subject of a huge amount of media coverage, the Sue Gray inquiry, various parliamentary committees and the question of whether Johnson lied to parliament about Partygate is about to be examined by the Commons privileges committee. The shenanigans in Downing Street will not be revisited by Baroness Hallett and her team.

When will Johnson and Sunak be grilled?

Not for a while. The key public hearings on “core political and administrative decision making” had been provisionally scheduled for summer 2023 but may well be pushed back, given the weight of material to get through before they can begin. The sheer volume of documentary evidence and participants will mean this will generally be a slow process. Even so, Johnson, Cummings, Sunak, Hancock, Hunt and others may well find themselves up against KCs before the next election. But the actual report, with its conclusions, recommendations and “lessons learned” is unlikely to be ready before the next general election even if it is pushed back as far as January 2025. Still, most reputational damage will be done during the hearings.