Hallett: what will the Inquiry achieve?
Having blogged for two years about the Covid issue I was delighted when the Hallett Inquiry was established “…set up to examine the UK’s response to and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, and learn lessons for the future”. The launch made great play of its independence. I had strong views on the clinical (mis)management of patients with Covid-19 which I had been trumpeting without much comeback, and thought that my evidence-based analysis was of some importance for a number of reasons; that clinicians had not been fully involved in high-level planning, that the cause of severe illness following SARS-CoV-2 infection had not been understood at the outset; and worst that my attempts to engage with government and offer clinical advice had been a complete failure. This last was not because my evidence had been rebutted, but because I had had no response whatsoever. At last someone independent would take notice, and my analysis of the failures of both epidemic and clinical management would be taken seriously.
I submitted my evidence in November 2022.
Apart from an acknowledgement of receipt, I heard nothing. I penned a note to Lady Hallett (who is a local resident) on 19th June 2023:
When we met briefly …it was not appropriate for me to buttonhole you about the coronavirus issue, much as I was anxious to do so. I have as you know submitted a formal statement of evidence to the Inquiry, and hope that I will be invited to present my views in person. In support of my previous statement I have attached two letters that I wrote, the first to Matt Hancock in early May 2020, and the second to Jeremy Hunt in September of that year when it was announced that there would be an Inquiry under the auspices of the Health Select Committee. That both were ignored is, certainly given the outcome, unforgiveable.
In the three years since I have found no reason to change anything in those two letters and indeed have repeated my arguments in my blog, and most recently (and concisely) in a letter published in “The Times” last week. I am concerned though that your Inquiry will begin by considering what I believe to be largely irrelevant evidence from the wrong people. For this reason I have also attached my most recent blog post.
If you feel it appropriate to have a discussion outside the formal process of the Inquiry – while not wishing to intrude on your “down time” – I would be very pleased to do this. I do appreciate that you may have many such requests but one way or the other I would like to understand the Inquiry’s plan and progress so that what I believe to be important issues are not overlooked.
I have copied this letter and attachments to the Inquiry team.
Lady Hallett thanked me for my offer, and the Inquiry team responded on 23rd July:
Thank you for your email of 19 June to Baroness Hallett enclosing your previous correspondence with Matt Hancock and Jeremy Hunt. I can confirm that your information, along with that contained in your email of 18 November, has been passed to the relevant team at the Inquiry.
Then – nothing.
So, two years on from my original submission, prompted by something I had read, I thought I should contact the Inquiry again. First I visited the website to see where my evidence had been filed. It was not there. So when I wrote on 2nd October I asked (a) when was I likely to be called and (b) where could I find my evidence.
I had no reply, so I repeated my request. Finally I received a reply
Thank you for your emails of 2 and 16 October to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry regarding your written submission of 15 November 2022. You ask why your information does not appear on our website and why you have not been called as a witness.
Given the scale of the pandemic and its effects, the Inquiry cannot hear from everyone who would like to give evidence directly to Baroness Hallett. With regard to calling witnesses, the Inquiry follows the procedures set out in the Inquiries Act 2005 and the Inquiry Rules 2006. These involve its module teams making requests for documentation and written evidence from those whom they consider may have useful information to provide. Once this information has been collated, the Inquiry decides which witnesses to call to give oral evidence bearing in mind a number of factors. These include the relevance to the scope of its modules, which potential witnesses are best placed to provide this information, and representations made by Core Participants.
During the course of each module, the Inquiry publishes the documents that counsel refers to during the hearings, so that members of the public can follow the proceedings and see what witnesses were shown.
As previously stated, the Inquiry is happy to receive submissions from interested parties and all information received is considered by the Inquiry. Legal counsel are assisted in this process by the Inquiry Secretariat who help to identify relevant material. I can confirm that the Inquiry team has carefully considered your written submission and, after consideration, the team decided it did not require any further information from you.
Fine, I thought. Actually not fine, but it was still not clear why my evidence was not available on the website, so I emailed again. The speed of response was a little quicker, as I had a reply on 4th November:
Thank you for your further email of 24 October to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry regarding your research submission of 15 November 22.
Thank you for your continued interest in the Inquiry. The inquiry publishes reports, publications, evidence and records related to its investigations and the running of the Inquiry. These can be found in the documents section of the Inquiry website. However, the only documents that are published as evidence are those that have been formally adduced in evidence as part of the Inquiry’s investigations [my italics].
Given the scale of the Inquiry, it is not possible to publish all the information we receive.
So there it is. I submitted a detailed analysis of what went wrong. I indicated that the absence of acute clinicians from the planning of a response was astonishing. I explained that most of the planning and response was unnecessary. I accepted that the government had experts, but explained they were the wrong experts. Events proved me right. Two years on and there is almost nothing I would change, though I might have added an appendix about the value or otherwise of vaccination. And yet my evidence remains unpublished, because it has not been formally adduced, so critical analysts of the progress of the Inquiry cannot consult it. Given the prominence given to individual patients whose experience is documented in great, and in planning terms irrelevant detail I find this inexplicable. It is, effectively, suppression of free speech – and I would like to know, given that the Inquiry team appears to consist entirely of lawyers, what business they have deciding the relevance or otherwise of clinical submissions. It was embarrassing to watch the fawning over official witnesses compared to the humiliation inflicted on Professor Carl Heneghan, whose reasoned evidence was treated as a joke. I am tempted to conclude that, as my evidence is highly critical of governmental action, the Inquiry is a cover-up, a whitewash. Even worse, the parts of my evidence that have been shown, in hindsight, to be inaccurate could be replaced by sections that are even more damning to the government’s management of the crisis. If the Inquiry is to be anything other than an empty vessel I believe it must publish all the evidence it receives, most especially from clinicians. Otherwise we will learn nothing, and the same mistakes will be made again and again.
I am considering a further formal response to the Inquiry, but meanwhile I have published my submission here. I look forward to hearing any suggestions as to what else I might do.
