Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministerial Statement

Covid-19 Pandemic: Government Response

17 September 2020 · 10 other contributors

Opened by William Wragg Con Crewe and Nantwich

Democracy & ElectionsParliamentary Procedure

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

William Wragg raised concerns about covid-19 pandemic: government response in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee presented a report on a public inquiry into the covid-19 pandemic response
  • The minister expressed gratitude for contributions from multiple witnesses including Emma Norris and Dr Alastair Stark
  • The minister highlighted the need for immediate steps in response to the pandemic's profound impact

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Government Statement

William Wragg

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee presented a report on a public inquiry into the response to the covid-19 pandemic, expressing gratitude for contributions from witnesses such as Emma Norris, Dr Alastair Stark, Jason Beer QC, Lord Butler of Brockwell, Sir Robert Francis, Dame Una O’Brien and Baroness Prashar of Runnymede. The minister emphasised the profound impact of the pandemic on various sectors and individuals and highlighted the need for immediate steps towards launching an inquiry to ensure it can begin evidence gathering before the end of the year. The report recommends a forward-looking approach focusing on understanding decisions and reasons, rather than solely apportioning blame. It also stresses the importance of transparency in appointing the chair and panel members, advocating for a 'comply or explain' approach by the Government to respond to recommendations. Concerns were raised about devolved matters receiving sufficient attention, encouraging each nation to establish its own inquiry.

Other contributors (10)
  • Christine Jardine Lib Dem Edinburgh West

    Question

    The hon. Gentleman's report was discussed. Although the shadow welcomes much of it, she questions whether a judge-led inquiry is not the best way to achieve transparency and suggests that there should be a broad UK approach in reserved areas.

    Minister reply

    The minister responded by stating that while the recommendation does not rule out a judge-led inquiry, a panel of different experts could contribute differently. He also agreed with the need for a coordinating role based on cooperation with devolved administrations.

  • David Mundell Con Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale

    Question

    Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be separate Scottish inquiries into areas of responsibility for the Scottish Government and an inquiry for reserved responsibilities in Scotland?

    Minister reply

    The minister agreed without pre-empting such an inquiry, highlighting significant areas of concern in Scotland.

  • Tom Randall

    Question

    Given that there is no standing secretariat for public inquiries and it took Sir Robert Francis four months to appoint solicitors, does my hon. Friend agree that starting the inquiry sooner rather than later will allow it to do important preparatory work?

    Minister reply

    The minister thanked his hon. Friend and emphasised the importance of using time wisely before the inquiry can begin taking evidence.

  • Steven Bonnar

    Question

    Does my hon. Member agree that devolved Governments should be afforded access to evidence-based decision making by the UK Government, which has had a direct impact on their ability to respond to the pandemic?

    Minister reply

    The minister thanked the hon. Gentleman and stated that it would be for the inquiry to require such evidence if based on statutory footing.

  • Ben Spencer Con Runnymede and Weybridge

    Question

    How can we ensure that the inquiry avoids using hindsight bias, given that this disease did not exist a year ago?

    Minister reply

    The minister thanked his hon. Friend and emphasised that the primary purpose of the inquiry should be 'to learn lessons and to make recommendations about how similar events can be better handled in future.'

  • Jim Shannon DUP Strangford

    Question

    I thank the hon. Member for his presentation. I wholeheartedly agree with him and others that there should be an inquiry, but does he agree that the inquiry should not be to point fingers, but rather to enable lessons to be learned if, God forbid, we come to circumstances like this again? Furthermore, does he agree that any inquiries and investigations carried out by the devolved Assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be sought by this inquiry team and must be incorporated in any report?

    Minister reply

    Yes, I agree with the thrust of the hon. Member’s question. He may already be aware of—and, following this statement, may wish to follow up—the evidence kindly presented to us by Gordon Lyons, Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive Office, who made an important contribution to our proceedings.

  • Scott Benton

    Question

    I thank my hon. Friend and all those who contributed to the report. Does he agree that it would be appropriate for any inquiry to consider the supply of critical equipment, including personal protective equipment and ventilators, and how the Government can ensure that we have adequate manufacturing capacity in the UK, so that we are not reliant on outside suppliers to have enough vital equipment?

    Minister reply

    I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Again, without pre-empting what such an inquiry may wish to investigate and find, it is useful to have the Paymaster General on the Treasury Bench, because I know that her department in the Cabinet Office is particularly keen on the areas that my hon. Friend mentioned.

  • Ronnie Cowan

    Question

    As a member of the Select Committee, I would like to thank all the Committee staff for their ongoing help, support, knowledge and professionalism during these complex times. Does the Chair agree that, if we are to fully understand how we can do things better, the proposed devolved inquiries must have access to the Cabinet members, experts and civil servants who were part of the UK Government’s response to the covid crisis?

    Minister reply

    I thank my fellow Committee member for his question. The short answer is yes, but it is important to remember that it will be the inquiry, placed on a statutory footing, that will be able to summon such evidence.

  • Valerie Vaz Lab Walsall and Bloxwich

    Question

    I thank the Chair and all the other members of the PACAC for this timely report, its fifth report; they have been very assiduous. Her Majesty’s Opposition have responded to this pandemic in a spirit of co-operation that has always put the national interest first, and we are also willing to work together to ensure the right lessons are learned. A full, independent public inquiry into the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic is essential to ensure that we are better equipped to confront future health emergencies. We need to ask questions about why Exercise Cygnus was not followed during the pandemic. An emphasis should be placed on the early response to the pandemic, including the factors that might have contributed to a delay in ordering a full lockdown and whether the initial herd immunity strategy was pursued. Members will have been shocked by the disproportionate number of BAME deaths, which were not just confined to people in poverty but included people of all classes, including consultants. Understanding these disparate outcomes should form a central part of the inquiry. The Prime Minister has said that the inquiry should not take place while the pandemic continues. I suggest there be a two-stage inquiry: an initial review followed by a wide-ranging public inquiry. We know that the Government Legal Service can set up inquiries quite quickly and that there are different inquiries taking place. I support the 16 recommendations in the report. It is extremely important that we hold the Government to account, so I agree with the Committee that the Liaison Committee should consider adding the scrutiny of the Government’s responses to public inquiries to the list of core tasks of the Departmental Select Committees. It would be a welcome development. I also think that the four nations should hold their own lessons-learned inquiries, because they all dealt with the pandemic differently.

    Minister reply

    I thank the right hon. Lady for her constructive reply and careful consideration of the report and for welcoming all our recommendations. I am sure that the Government—with my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on the Front Bench—will in due course welcome all those recommendations as well.

Shadow Comment

Christine Jardine

The shadow welcomed much of the report but expressed disagreement with the recommendation against a judge-led inquiry for achieving transparency. She suggested encouraging a broad UK approach in reserved areas to ensure a national picture, rather than disjointed inquiries.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy