The failure of Westminster and the UK’s devolved governments to act more promptly to protect the public in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic could have cost more than 20,000 lives, the Covid-19 Inquiry has said.
In its latest report on the handling of the pandemic, Baroness Heather Hallett’s panel said that while the lockdowns introduced in 2020 and 2021 “undoubtedly saved lives”, an earlier and better-coordinated response would have protected greater numbers.
The inquiry’s Module 2 report, which was published yesterday, looks at “core UK decision-making and political governance”. It finds that in early 2020 all four governments failed to appreciate the scale of the threat posed by Covid-19 and the urgency of response it demanded.
The inquiry says the situation was “compounded” in part by “misleading assurances” from the Department of Health and Social Care and the widely held view that the UK was well prepared for a pandemic.
It says that by the time the possibility of a mandatory lockdown was first considered, it was already too late and a lockdown had become unavoidable.
The UK government introduced advisory restrictions on 16 March 2020 and a mandatory lockdown from 23 March. The panel said that if a mandatory lockdown had been imposed on or immediately after 16 March, modelling showed that in England alone there would have been approximately 23,000 fewer deaths in the first wave of the pandemic.
The Covid Inquiry’s latest report makes 19 recommendations focused on urgent reform and clarification of the structures for decision-making within each of the UK’s four governments to allow them to handle future emergencies more effectively.
‘Too little, too late’
Hallett said UK politicians and administrators had been “presented with unenviable choices” in early 2020, as Covid-19 began spreading rapidly around the country.
“Whatever decision they took, there was often no right answer or good outcome,” she said. “They also had to make decisions in conditions of extreme pressure and initially without access to data or a full understanding of the epidemiological position.”
Hallett said that assessing what was reasonable required decisions to be put into proper context. However her verdict is a damning one.
“I can summarise my findings of the response as ‘too little, too late’,” she said. “All four governments failed to appreciate the scale of the threat or the urgency of response it demanded in the early part of 2020, relying in part on misleading assurances that the UK was properly prepared for a pandemic.”
Hallett said February 2020 had been a “lost month” in which the tempo of the UK’s response to the pandemic should have been increased, but was not.
“There was a serious failure by all four governments to appreciate the level of risk and the calamity that the UK faced, and the need to inject urgency into the response,” she said.
“The obviously escalating crisis required leadership from the very top. All four governments knew that in the reasonable worst-case scenario, up to 80% of the population would be infected, with a very significant loss of life.”
Hallett said by the time that the first mandatory lockdown was imposed, there had been no choice for ministers.
“It was through their own acts and omissions that they had no choice,” she said. “Had the lockdown been imposed one week earlier than 23 March, the evidence suggests that the number of deaths in England alone in the first wave up until the 1 July 2020, would have been reduced by 48%. That is approximately 23,000 fewer deaths.”
Lack of adequate preparation
Hallett said none of the governments in the UK had adequately prepared for the challenges and risks that a national lockdown presented, and that they did not scrutinise the wider societal workforce and economic impacts seriously enough either.
She said it was “inexcusable” that many of the same failings were repeated later in 2020. “The second wave had been predicted from early in the pandemic,” she said. “The UK should have been well-equipped to respond.”
Hallett also referred to different impacts across the four nations in the second wave of the pandemic.
She noted that between August and December 2020, Wales had the highest age-standardised mortality rate of the four nations. She said that was probably the result of a combination of failed local restrictions and the decision to relax non-pharmaceutical interventions too quickly.
Hallett said that decision-making in Northern Ireland was “chaotic and infected by political machination”. She said the strained relationship between ministers contributed to an “incoherent approach” to circuit-breaker restrictions that correlated to a 25% increase in cases.
The inquiry chair said the number of cases in Scotland in autumn 2020 did not peak to the same level as the rest of the UK. “By using stringent, locally targeted measures swiftly to deal with outbreaks, case numbers grew much more gradually and avoided the need for a nationwide lockdown in the autumn,” she said.
Hallett added that across the UK, allegations of rule-breaking on the part of ministers and advisers had “caused huge distress and undermined the confidence of the public”.
“The very least the public is entitled to expect is that those making the rules will abide by them,” she said.
The various Whitehall events that comprised the Partygate scandal and former No.10 chief adviser Dominic Cummings’ notorious County Durham excursion are among the higher-profile examples of rule-breaking from the period.
Call for prompt action
Among its 19 recommendations, the report calls for a review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and for representatives from devolved administrations to be invited to participate in COBR briefings in the event of future “whole-system civil emergencies”.
The inquiry also says structures for decision-making during emergencies should be “reformed and clarified” in each nation of the UK, with the response to future whole-system civil emergencies coordinated through central taskforces in each nation.
In particular, it recommends a review of structures and delegated powers of government in Northern Ireland with a view to giving the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, the first minister and the deputy first minister more powers the event of an emergency.
Further proposals include improving governments’ “routine consideration” of the impact that decisions might have on those most at risk in an emergency. The inquiry said this should include extending the socio-economic duty within the Equality Act 2010 to England and Northern Ireland.
A Cabinet Office spokesperson said the Module 2 report made “sobering reading”.
“The government thanks Baroness Hallett and her team for their thorough work on these serious issues,” they said.
“We will consider its findings and recommendations in detail and respond in due course. The government remains committed to learning the lessons needed from the Covid Inquiry to protect and prepare us for the future.”