The Tribune

THE British government’s public inquiry in to the COVID-19 pandemic is now under way. Local reaction so far has been mixed. Critics are calling it a total waste of time and money that will end up as an “appalling establishment sham”. But others believe it is essential to conduct a comprehensive examination of what happened in order to identify and take account of policy failures.

The inquiry’s terms of reference are to consider and report on the preparations for the pandemic and the response and long-term impact, and to learn lessons for the future. It is said that the proceedings could last until 2026 though an interim report is expected early next year.

It is worth noting that in the UK a Public Inquiry is a major independent investigation set up in response to public concern about a particular event or set of events. Established and funded by the government, such inquiries are led by an independent chair - in this case a former judge. Inquiries can demand evidence and compel witnesses to attend, but no one is found guilty or innocent though the conclusions are published for all to see.

Interestingly, the critics have been notably vocal. One UK journalist, who is known normally for his moderate and pragmatic approach to controversial issues, has called the inquiry a “lumbering juggernaut living down to the lowest of expectations” – adding that its extravagant cost, with lawyers and others making a killing, “is not matched by a clear uplifting purpose”. This is pretty strong stuff, and some of his colleagues have written in similar vein.

Others have been more restrained, saying that the aim of the inquiry ought to be to learn lessons about the interplay between scientific knowledge and public policy so that Britain will be better prepared to cope with the next pandemic. It is being said, however, that the proceedings have already descended in to nit-picking lawyers regurgitating facts that are already in the public domain and witnesses seeking to justify themselves and their actions in order to deflect any personal blame. In light of this, some people are now pointing to the danger of the proceedings acquiring the trappings of a political show trial.

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has already appeared as a witness. He faced a detailed cross examination while speaking with frankness and some emotion as someone who himself had contracted the virus and had been hospitalised. It seems that he handled the gruelling questioning well. He began his evidence by apologizing for the “pain and the loss and the suffering” and issued a fulsome apology for mistakes made, saying that “there were unquestionably things we should have done differently”, and he admitted that he and his colleagues had underestimated the scale and the challenge posed by the pandemic.

Other critics are now expressing fears that the inquiry will end as a whitewash of many bad decisions made by both scientists and panicking politicians. I, for one, think that there is little real point in looking in much detail at the quality of the scientific advice since those concerned with producing it will always argue over the accuracy of the science, as academics and technical people normally do.

What surely matters is whether the policy-makers acted coherently, correctly and reasonably in reaction to the advice they received, and did they choose the right solutions in dealing with the virus, both in seeking to prevent its spread and in looking after the most vulnerable. To the layman, those appear to be the basic questions.

From what I have been able to glean from the evidence so far, the received wisdom is that lockdowns were the right action to take to try to limit the spread of the virus and that the Johnson government should have imposed them earlier. But, if so, it appears already from the evidence that there was no effective pre-planning for strict and comprehensive lockdowns and no one had thought through their likely longer term impact. Furthermore, had anyone really considered and evaluated what the alternatives might have been?

Commentators are now saying that what is needed is a rational and honest assessment of whether shutting everything down was justified given the huge and devastating affect on everybody – described by some as an ‘outrageous cruelty’ inflicted on the British people for more than a year. Many believed at the time that, rather than trying to stop the spread of COVID by saddling society with damaging restrictions affecting the whole country, greater emphasis should have been placed on protecting the vulnerable at higher risk of contracting the virus and therefore spreading it – including those with relevant medical pre-conditions - in the same way that they were more likely to get the flu in winter than those who are generally fit; and, on that argument, the decision to discharge COVID-19 positive patients into residential care settings for the elderly now seems to have been sheer lunacy.

 At this early stage of the inquiry, it would clearly be unwise to speculate about possible findings. But, from the evidence so far, the idea that government ministers should have channelled resources first and foremost in to protecting both the old and the vulnerable of all ages, which is what in effect the vaccine has now done, may just be gaining ground. Be that as it may, most people will surely hope that the eventual report of the inquiry will not simply end up traducing politicians for their failings and lack of judgement but also produce valuable lessons for handling similar disasters in the future.

TORIES SUFFERING INTERNAL DIFFERENCES YET AGAIN

For fear of repetition, I hesitate to raise again the contentious issue of immigration which I wrote about only two weeks ago. Incidentally, a friend has helpfully pointed out, among other things, that the record figures for net migration to the UK which I wrote about last time fail to reveal - unless broken down by category - the positive side of immigration; for example, those who come to Britain to work in the National Health Service and especially the nurses from overseas who always seem to be in great demand. I was grateful to him for this and other relevant feedback.

Immigration has remained at the fore as a contentious issue in the UK because of the illegal side of it – specifically, the continuing dangerous attempts of large and growing numbers of migrants to cross the English Channel from France in small boats in order to enter Britain illegally. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made his pledge to “stop the boats” one of his main priorities; indeed, this phrase has become part of his political lexicon. His original plan was to transport them to Rwanda for processing in the hope that the knowledge that they would be sent immediately to Africa might deter would-be migrants from trying to make this perilous journey to the UK. But this scheme was declared unlawful by the UK Supreme Court on the grounds that Rwanda was not a safe country.

Now, his government has tried again with new emergency legislation which supposedly meets the UK’s commitments to international law, and is due to be debated in the House of Commons this week. However, the Conservatives are deeply split on the issue. The minister responsible for immigration, who had been a trusted and close ally of Sunak, has resigned and the party is divided between right and left.

The latter are concerned that the government is overriding the UK’s obligations under international law – in particular the European Convention on Human Rights and judgements from the ECHR’s Court – and seeking to clip the wings of unelected judges as well as the UK’s own Human Rights Act.

By contrast, those on the right fear that the new legislation does not go far enough in strengthening the nation’s borders. In particular, by allowing migrants to lodge legal challenges against removal to Rwanda, the system will be hit with further delays and, in practice, will be unworkable and doomed to failure. As some of these are now saying, the law-abiding general public clearly wants illegal immigration to be controlled. So they ask who is governing the country. Is it the British people through their elected representatives? Or is good governance being replaced by slavish adherence to what is being called the “vague, shifting and unaccountable concept of international law”?

By all accounts, this important issue has come to a head this past weekend as Tory MPs mull over how to vote sometime this week on Sunak’s new Bill. It has shown up the deep divisions and intense friction within the Tory Party to such an extent that some observers believe that, severely split as it is, it is no longer in a position to govern.

There is no space today to go more thoroughly in to the reasons for such disunity. Suffice it to say that, reportedly, if the Prime Minister fails to get his Rwanda legislation through, he will be in a perilous position and could face a leadership challenge. Most people agree that this would be disastrous for the Tories and could lead to oblivion at the next election.

I hope that, given Britain’s prominent position in the world, especially its enhanced global standing as a separate independent nation after leaving the European Union, it will be interesting for readers to follow such developments concerning the country’s domestic political situation. Stability and strength at home provide the basis of the nation’s international role and underpin its achievements on the global stage.

New role for former PM

At the time last month of the appointment of former British Prime Minister David Cameron as Foreign Secretary after a Cabinet reshuffle, many in the UK regarded his return to government as a retrograde step and hardly fitting after his controversial record during six years in office as PM. In particular, he will forever be seen as the leader who presided – some say needlessly and even recklessly - over a referendum in 2016 to determine whether Britain should continue its membership of the European Union or to leave the bloc. The result was a victory for the “leavers” by the narrowest of margins – 52 per cent to 48 per cent – and the creation of enormous divisions within the country.

Cameron was criticised for poor judgement in putting the matter to the test, for which many argued there was no compelling reason. He immediately resigned, and there followed years of argument and bickering over Brexit that resulted in continuing political uncertainty and endless conflict.

Another reason for people’s doubts was that he is known for being left of centre politically and there were doubts about whether that might be out of step with the current mood in the Conservative Party, not least in relation to foreign aid.

To add to those doubts was that the former prime minister was no longer in the House of Commons so would not have to face a regular grilling by MPs as part of the legislature’s scrutiny of the executive under the Westminster system. Thus, he would have to be made a peer and sit in the House of Lords. But that could work in practice, as shown by Lord Carrington who served as foreign secretary under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

Despite all these doubts, however, I suspect that anyone who witnessed Britain’s new foreign secretary in action during his visit to Washington last week will cast aside any thought that somehow this was not an appropriate – and indeed a very good - appointment.

Those watching the TV coverage of his address to the Aspen Security Forum in Washington will have witnessed an exemplary lesson in how to describe Britain’s standing in the world and its foreign policy – succinct but comprehensive and in considerable detail when needed -- while also appealing in a most persuasive manner to those concerned in Washington to continue to support Ukraine politically, diplomatically and militarily. In a most impressive performance, showing a skilled grasp of international affairs, Lord Cameron spoke for ten minutes – spontaneously and without standing at a podium and using notes. He was received warmly and clearly had the undivided attention of everybody in the room.

I later watched him being interviewed on CNN in another bravura performance which must have surprised his interlocutors, accustomed as they surely are to a lower quality of interviewee. Then, there was a televised press conference with US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, at which, to my eye, he outshone his American counterpart at every step.

The only downside of all this is that on current estimates the Tories are likely to lose the coming UK general election and Lord Cameron will be out of office far too quickly. Nonetheless, in the meantime the UK will surely benefit considerably from his stint as foreign secretary – and, reportedly, people are already talking of him as a possible successor to the current Secretary General of NATO.