The Winners And Losers So Far In The Covid-19 Inquiry

The Covid inquiry is supposed to be about delineating what happened during the pandemic, learning lessons, and making findings that can be treated as recommendations.

- SEAN O'GRADY

It is independent, and run by senior judge Baroness Hallett, who has been visibly fair in her role. Being statutory, established under the Inquiries Act 2005, and with the chair able to run it as she deems fit, it has no political agenda. It is an investigatory tribunal, and nobody is on trial.

Even so, the reputations of many politicians and civil servants are being tested. The final report, which will focus on institutional and “structural” factors, may still criticise or censure key players. There is a human factor.

Thus far, there have been some notable winners and losers. Matt Hancock, who was health secretary for most of the pandemic, is a case in point. And on Wednesday and Thursday next week, Boris Johnson will offer his testimony…

How did Matt Hancock do?

He endured one of the more difficult cross-examinations yesterday. Some of the previous witnesses had been devastatingly critical of Hancock during the pandemic and were similarly inclined while giving their testimony, so he was on the defensive coming into the inquiry. Cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill; his deputy, Helen MacNamara; the chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance; Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s adviser, and Johnson himself had all been disparaging – variously accusing Hancock of misleading them, about Covid/infection control and preparedness plans, and critical of his administrative ability. Others, such as Dominic Raab and Michael Gove, expressed a higher opinion of him. It’s fair to say that the questioning from Hugo Keith KC didn’t entirely repair Hancock’s standing. In particular, Hancock was unable to prove he had told Johnson to impose a national lockdown on 13 March 2020. Here’s a typical exchange: