NO ONE in Britain was unaffected by Covid and the restrictions that followed the pandemic. We all have an interest and stake in the outcome of the inquiry that starts today into the handling of the pandemic under the aegis of Baroness Hallett. The scope of the inquiry is enormous: as she says, her chief role is “to determine whether [the] level of loss”, in the broadest sense of the word, “was inevitable or whether things could have been done better”. In other words almost everything that happened between February 2020 and mid-2021 comes within her remit.
It is a formidable undertaking and it will be impossible for the inquiry to satisfy everyone, but it must be done if we are to learn the lessons of Covid. The first stage will deal with the level of preparedness for the outbreak and that will yield valuable lessons. Other modules will address government policy, and issues such as the NHS.
It would be easy for the proceedings to go on endlessly but fortunately Baroness Hallett is well aware of the danger; she wants to issue interim judgments by next year and for the hearings to conclude in three years’ time. Of course there will be evidence passed over and experts who are not consulted but the great thing is that we should have the results of the inquiry sooner rather than later.
We need an audit of what was done well and badly. Many policy decisions meant for the best had unintended consequences; pupils sitting their public examinations now are still dealing with the effects of school closures; there are still valid arguments about the costs and benefits of lockdowns. What is important is that the inquiry should be able to approach all these issues with an open mind, with no element out of bounds.
The inquiry may well have a cathartic effect on the country, enabling us to come to terms with what was a national and global trauma. Baroness Hallett is to be saluted for undertaking this immense task — we wish her well.
Too bad, Nadine
NADINE Dorries, the former culture secretary, says in an interview with TalkTV that the reason she is not heading for the House of Lords from Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list is that “this story is about a girl from Liverpool... who had something that was offered to her... removed by two privileged posh boys”. One is the Prime Minister.
This is unjust, although Dorries has form in attacks on wealthy top Tories. The reason why her peerage was denied was that she was a sitting MP and it is not possible to grant MPs a deferred peerage. She may well be “broken-hearted”, but the reality is that a peerage is not an automatic reward for loyalty for ex-politicians. Too bad.
TfL bonuses... really?
THE news that Transport for London bosses may be getting big bonuses is unlikely to enchant passengers, whose struggle with the cost of living isn’t made easier by high fares and whose commute is often plagued by late-running trains. TfL executives are already well paid, do they really need eye-watering bonuses at a time like this? No.
