Time for us all to face reality of deciding to do what is sensible

SO Flaming June arrives, for once, amid weather conditions that suit the name. The first day of this June is also significant as many of us are now allowed to begin to emerge from the rather strange sheltered lives we have been living since the end of March.

Small groups of people will be able to meet within the rules for the first time from today in England, and more than two million clinically extremely vulnerable people who have been shielding since March will finally be allowed to spend time with other people outdoors.

It is a welcome moment for many, but critics of the Government have suggested the lockdown easement may be coming too early. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab - doing the round of political TV shows yesterday morning - admitted that this was a sensitive moment, but stressed that the easing measures were gradual.

A slightly sterner message came on Saturday when England’s deputy chief medical officer insisted that the new freedoms, which will come into effect officially after a hot weekend which has enticed people to beaches and beauty spots, must be treated with caution.

Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said the Government and public had a “dual responsibility” to prevent a second wave of the virus, describing now as a “very dangerous moment”.

Addressing the public’s responsibility in stark terms while he took part in the daily Downing Street briefing, he said: “Don’t tear the pants out of it, and don’t go further than the guidance actually says.”

The public’s will was put to a severe test over the weekend as the entire country basked in summer sunshine. Many people were sensible and stuck with the spirit of the rules, others took advantage. Pictures of Durdle Door in Dorset, where three people were injured, showed people crammed onto the beach - even yesterday after the beach had been closed.

Dominic Cummings’s behaviour, and the Prime Minister’s rather bumbling defence of it, has no doubt drained some of the clarity around the Government’s messaging, but it is all too easy to use that as an excuse for what is frankly quite irresponsible behaviour. Yesterday it was reported that police officers were taunted by a group of young men who were ignoring social distancing rules on Exmouth beach and there were other reports or large gatherings on beaches all over the region.

Coming out of lockdown was never going to be easy, but the challenge for every single one of us now is to take responsibility for how we behave. Coronavirus is still very much amongst us, and ignoring social distancing rules is bound to increase the chances of a second spike in infections.

Dr Jenny Harries, deputy medical director for England was very clear yesterday. She said: “Where we are seeing that Government is easing measures, the public really, really need to stick to those messages and it is not just about what it is possible to do, it’s about what it is sensible to do and what is sensible to do is have as few interactions as possible as you can with other people in all settings. I think it’s really important that people just try to use these measures sensibly.”

IT’S now seen as inevitable that there will be a public inquiry about the coronavirus outbreak in the UK as criticism grows about the Government handling of the crisis. But it shouldn’t be seen as the only, or the most useful way to provide accountability.

Public inquiries have long been used in Britain to find the facts after major incidents, and used frequently in recent years. They were first established on a legislative basis in 1921, and are now regulated under the Inquiries Act 2005 with a deceptively simple purpose, to provide a means, independent of the government, to find out what happened, who or what is to blame and what can be done to prevent this happening again.

Not all major incidents are subject to a public inquiry, however. In 1988, the Lockerbie disaster killed 270 people aboard Pan American Flight 103 yet no inquiry was appointed. There was also no independent public inquiry into the banking crisis in 2008.

As much as critics of the Government would like a full investigation into the state response to covonavirus in this country only ministers can establish a public inquiry, and often only choose to do this when the costs of not doing so outweigh the risks of acknowledging failings.

At the other extreme, there ultimately may be more than one inquiry. There are of course famous examples of public inquiries where findings have later been discredited. Some have come to contradictory conclusions. A rushed or botched COVID-19 investigation could ultimately lead to reports which muddy the water and leave conclusions either permanently open to challenge or, just as serious, arrived at years too late for recommendations to be implemented in time for future pandemic events.

Whatever happens, the choice of chair and terms of reference for any inquiry will be highly contested. Their appointment will be both crucially important and a moment of acute danger for any inquiry. This choice lies with ministers. However, increasingly appointments and terms of reference have been developed in consultation with representatives of affected groups.

This has obvious benefits of securing buy-in from victims but the dangers of this approach have also been seen in the case of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse, which has cycled through four chairs, with a series of revisions to its scope and terms of reference.

The last review of a UK government response to a pandemic, the 2009 H1N1 ‘Swine flu’ outbreak (though not a public inquiry) had two bullet points for terms of reference and interviewed around 100 actors mainly from within government.

The scale of an inquiry into COVID-19 will be incomparable to this, requiring a process and a chair capable of engaging with the vast array of victims so far.

An inquiry is likely to examine the complex webs of accountability between Government and NHS England and Public Health England, and how scientific advice reaches ministers through an ‘alphabet soup’ of committees with varying responsibilities. Would we expect anyone to apologise or admit failings, and is that what victims would want?

A public inquiry into the government’s pandemic response thus may well be a warranted and necessary part of the process of evaluating what went wrong in the greatest public health crisis in a century.

But we should not see an inquiry as necessarily the inevitable conclusion or the only useful way to provide accountability and learn the lessons of COVID-19.

Pressure from the public, the work of Parliamentary select committees and self-evaluation within the NHS and public health bodies may answer some of the questions we most want answered, and lead to the implementation of major changes to better protect the public faster than a full inquiry.

Nick Dickinson is a lecturer in British Politics at the University of Exeter.