Johnson’s Covid claims dismantled as inquiry prepares for Christmas break

Boris Johnson’s claim that his conduct did not lead to avoidable deaths was systematically dismantled as the UK’s Covid-19 inquiry prepares for its Christmas break.

After 33 days of evidence, the latest module – on government decision making in the early stages of the pandemic – is drawing to a close.

But after the former prime minister attempted to absolve himself of responsibility for errors made in the fight against the virus, lawyers representing families who lost loved ones took their chance to hit back in closing submissions.

“The inquiry should be inherently wary of the ‘we didn’t do too badly’ narrative, which could only be a basis for complacency going forward,” said Anna Morris KC, acting for the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK group.

“There is no foundation whatsoever for the narrative that, despite the criticisms and predictions, the UK did OK.

“This bold, sweeping assertion is remarkable for one thing: it has no factual basis.

“If there was a basis for it, no doubt Mr Johnson and his team of lawyers would have exhibited the evidence. They have not.”

Johnson faced a grilling from inquiry lawyers earlier this month in which he struggled to defend his time in office.

This included his denial that structural racism had increased the virus death toll, despite evidence it was barely considered by pandemic planners.

He also insisted he had been unaware the flagship Eat Out to Help Out scheme – brainchild of the then chancellor and current PM Rishi Sunak – had been drawn up without expert input, expressing disbelief it could have been “smuggled past the scientific advice”.

At one point, Johnson even claimed he was unable to name a single mistake made by his government during the pandemic, arguing a densely spread and ageing population had been among the most significant factors.

But this was rejected by Morris, who told the inquiry international studies had shown the UK performed “very badly indeed against global comparisons”, including comparable European nations.

South Korea and Singapore had far lower Covid-19 mortality rates than the UK, despite significantly higher population density, as did Germany, which has a similar population density profile and an older population.

Morris added: “Awkward things called facts and evidence get in the way of his narrative.

“The reality was that in January and February 2020, he was telling those that would listen that this was a false alarm, and that the overreaction would damage the economy.

“Eminent scientists were under no such delusion.”

Among these “eminent scientists” was former deputy chief medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam, who raised concerns in January 2020, more than two months before the first lockdown.

The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) also advised in September 2020 that there should be a “circuit breaker” lockdown in response to rising infections.

Ministers instead opted for “a series of tiering measures which were doomed to fail and did so”.

However, there was also some criticism of SAGE and a call for the establishment of a standing committee on pandemics to “bring together relevant scientific minds in peacetime”, rather than relying on emergency procedures in a crisis.

Brenda Campbell KC, of the Northern Ireland Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group, also pointed out the “remarkable lack of curiosity” from members of SAGE about the absence of experts from devolved nations early in the pandemic and an “Anglo-centric approach” to the pandemic response.

Earlier this week, Sunak defended his role in the pandemic, insisting it was “normal” to implement fiscal policies, such as Eat Out to Help Out, without scientific input.

Morris also defended the inquiry against attacks from political commentators in recent weeks, who have called it a “cover-up” and “blame game”. Isabel Oakeshott, a former Sunday Times political editor and close associate of Tory donor Michael Ashcroft, dismissed the inquiry as an “absurdity” and asked what the “point” of it was while head-to-head with openDemocracy's political correspondent Ruby Lott-Lavigna on TalkTV last month.

Morris told the inquiry: “Contrary to some of the ill informed articles in the tabloids, this inquiry is not examining the rights and wrongs of Brexit. It is not interested in the political colours of those in government at the time. It is certainly not going to be distracted by the soap opera of the language or internecine squabbles in various WhatsApp or other messaging.”

The inquiry continues. openDemocracy is fundraising to pay reporters to cover every day of the public hearings. Please support us by donating here.