This article is being written as Boris Johnson is being interrogated by not just the CPI’s team of expensive KCs. In addition, he is also at the mercy of barristers representing interest groups such as ethnic minorities, long Covid victims and suffering children. They are all seeking, like almost all witnesses, to make him personally responsible for all covid deaths and misery. Fortunately, there has been at least one witness exhibiting appropriate humility and professionalism.
“Chris Whitty generates calmness and confidence” Sherbhert said in Coronavirus and other C Words on 6 March 2020. That was published at a time when little was known about Covid and when confidence in the UK’s ability to deal with the pandemic was strong, such that on 5 March 2020 the Times referenced a report by among others The Economist Intelligence Unit which ranked the UK second behind the USA in terms of health security. Chris Whitty then was declaring confidence the country would come through Covid in a few months. He admitted his error and, of course, that very same position of advisers, experts and Whitehall was later proved mistaken. All with hindsight.
WHITTY THE PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC SERVANT
The Covid Public Inquiry, or prosecution or inquisition depending on your perception of it, has publicly grilled key characters in the last couple of weeks, such as Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Patrick Vallance, Jonathan Van-Tam, Michael Gove and Matt Hancock. These interviews reinforced first the impression that most witnesses have their own defensive agendas to publicise and that, while ready with hindsight to admit mistakes were made (along with most countries around the world), their strategy is to diminish their own role in those mistakes and deflect responsibility elsewhere. Most grasp the theme of a toxic and chaotic Whitehall and especially Downing Street for which Boris Johnson must accept ultimate responsibility; and echoing all who have gone before that the resting place for real fault is with him, with lessons learned from the pandemic seemingly of only secondary importance. They also reinforced the impression that the interrogator lawyers are pleased with themselves, are desperate to catch out those they clearly deem culprits, and that the inquiry has preformed views, such as that lockdowns were the correct approach not really to be questioned. This inquiry is poisoned by bias, absence of natural justice and lawyer dominance to create a public trial rather than a chance to learn lessons and improve response to the next pandemic.
Sir Chris Whitty, however, as during the pandemic, remained a beacon of light. Straightforward and realistic, and refusing to point the finger of incompetence at any individual, despite interrogators’ efforts to make him do so. He demonstrated a professionalism sorely lacking in most witnesses. He was clear as Chief Medical Officer that the Department of Health did not expect its recommendations as to what measures or policies would have the greatest impact in respect of health outcomes to be followed every time. And that it was for Government to weigh the competing factors, e.g. macroeconomic impacts to determine where the public interest lay. However, even he found fault elsewhere, as he did blame the wider system of government for poor results during the pandemic. For example, he argued the lack of urgency in February 2020 was rooted in systemic Whitehall failure to view diseases and natural hazards in the same way as other national security threats such as terrorism. In his view, regarding the first lockdown, all the options were very bad, some a bit worse, and some very, very bad. Chris Whitty displayed the proper attributes of somebody who understands public service.
HANCOCK THE HATED
Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health during the toughest of the pandemic times, also took the stand. By then, previous public and televised interviews of others, especially when combined with a clear news media disdain for him, had successfully painted him as a liar and cause of pandemic pain, which was clearly the approach of the lead Counsel, Hugo Keith, a true legal peacock, behaving as a disgusted prosecutor.
In the Times of 1 December, writer Tom Peck exulted in what he saw as humiliation of Matt Hancock, particularly noting how he squirmed under the scalpel of Hugo Keith. This interrogation illustrated well the two themes of the witness wishing to publicise his agenda and the opinionated smug bias of the inquisitor.
Matt Hancock had his own agenda. For example, It is clear that until 14 March neither advisers, health or other experts, or Whitehall professional civil servants, nor therefore Ministers were advocating lockdown as the desired option for action. But Matt Hancock insisted on confessing that with hindsight they should have locked the country down at the start of March and, he said, if they had, the death rate would have been reduced by 90% – how that can be proven is unknown. He evidently wishes to paint himself throughout as the lockdown proponent, so in keeping with the evident predilections of the CPI itself, which labours ad nauseam lockdown as the answer.
A considerable period of interrogation was devoted to the appreciation, or lack of, of asymptomatic transmission in the period up to the end of March. Hugo Keith had so obviously decided from what he had seen thus far that Matt Hancock at least had ignored concerns about asymptomatic transmission; and he had planned his interrogation to inexorably lead to the conclusion that Matt Hancock was being disingenuous at best, and perhaps showing himself as a liar, in recognising concerns and not changing policy to reflect that. Time after time Hugo Keith, in the manner of the Inquisition, told Matt Hancock to just answer the question and admit his inconsistency. But the questions were loaded: Matt Hancock repeatedly, in fairness to him, told the Barrister that his premise was misconceived because until the Centres for Prevention of Disease issued a report in early April that proved asymptomatic transmission, it had been the advice of the WHO and Public Health England to treat Covid like SARs, that is no asymptomatic transmission; and that such transmission, while there were anecdotal instances, was not evidenced to a scientific standard. Matt Hancock could have overruled scientists but chose not to. The interrogators’ aim in public to discredit so many people is shameful and pointless, undermines the validity of the CPI, and damages society.
THE THEATRE CONTINUES
Selective reporting will inevitably ensure that the predetermined villains of the pandemic tragedies will be found guilty. This inquiry and the media coverage will likely also ensure that in future in a crisis senior decision makers devote their energy to covering their backs, perhaps by keeping self-serving diaries; and that fewer highly competent people will embrace public service with the courage to speak their mind, all for fear of the lawyers and anyone who wants a say destroying them later with hindsight.
In learning lessons, it is important to have no axe to grind against Matt Hancock, Boris Johnson, Sir Chris Whitty or other participants. But the playing field is so skewed that nobody will receive a fair trial by this public display. Of course, it is expressly not the aim of the CPI to put anyone on trial but that is precisely what it is doing. Given that the TV cameras are firmly on every interesting character being interviewed, interrogator and witness alike are producing theatre not realism.
See also: The Covid Inquiry Circus
