MPs demand Government publish full Sage advice

Government was warned that advisory group had ‘carte blanche to operate’ after Icelandic ash crisis

THE Government was warned Sage had a “carte blanche to operate how they pleased” during previous national emergencies, as MPs demand its advice should be published in full.

Senior Tory MPs have echoed the concerns of a 2011 report that criticised Sage (the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) and called for future versions of the panel to be more “organised, transparent and accessible”. Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary, and Greg Clark, chairman of the science and technology committee, have said it is impossible to scrutinise the advice given to ministers when it is secret.

Mr Clark said the findings of the science and technology committee, which convened to assess the fallout of swine flu and the Icelandic volcano eruption, were still relevant, and called for its findings to be “reflected upon”.

The committee that criticised Sage included the current Business Secretary, Alok Sharma. Mr Sharma distanced himself from the comments when approached for this story, but did not defend the panel, which has operated under a veil of secrecy since the start of the pandemic in the UK.

Sage has been criticised for its lack of openness during the Covid-19 crisis, after it emerged Boris Johnson’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, had sat in on meetings. The list of names was eventually published more than three months after the group was convened. But its documents, including minutes, evidence papers and advice issued to the Government which influenced the decision to enforce lockdown on March 23, are yet to be released in full.

The release of some documents earlier this month was criticised after they were heavily redacted.

Questioning why Sage did not originally advocate for the South Korean model of test, track and trace every case, Mr Hunt said there was “too much secrecy” and its recommendations have never been made public.

‘Additional scrutiny would have meant those oversights would not have been made’

“They can never be scrutinised by other scientists,” he said. “Had we been more public about those recommendations … I think that scrutiny would have meant that those kinds of oversights would not have been made and the Government would have got better advice.”

Mr Clark told The Telegraph the findings of the 2011 inquiry were “notable” and there is a “strong case” for publishing Sage evidence papers, along with a summary of the advice given to ministers “straight away”. He added: “I think it is reasonable, to be able to scrutinise whether the Government is following scientific advice, to know what [it] is.”

His committee will be making formal recommendations to the Government that the scientific papers should be published “promptly”, he said. The

‘The Sage mechanism operates under a presumption of secrecy rather than openness’

2011 Science and Technology committee inquiry examined how scientific evidence and advice was used. It concluded: “We do not accept that Sages should be given a carte blanche to operate however they please just because an emergency is occurring … the Government Office for Science should take responsibility for ensuring that future Sages operate in a more organised, transparent and accessible manner.”

In particular, the secrecy of Sage during the volcanic ash eruption, which shut down European airspace, “posed a barrier to external scientists who wanted to contribute but were left outside the loop”, the inquiry found.

“We are concerned that the Sage mechanism operates under a presumption of secrecy rather than transparency and openness,” it said.