Back in May, Boris Johnson announced that the Government would be launching a public inquiry into the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, under the Inquiries Act 2005. The inquiry itself has yet to be launched, with the Government still arguing that the time is not yet right. In Edinburgh however, the Scottish Government announced this week their own inquiry, led by a judge, and to start by the end of the year.

When the UK Government’s announcement was made, we wrote about the arguments for a consultation process on the terms of reference, largely that a consultation would encourage trust in the inquiry, would ensure that all relevant issues were considered, and show a genuine willingness to learn. Although we have no further information on the UK inquiry, the Scottish Government’s inquiry was announced with a request for feedback on the draft aims and principles of the inquiry.

The request is framed almost casually, a simple request for the public to share their ideas and comments on the suggested approach via e-mail, with the approach being described in the following terms:

“The proposed inquiry would be established by the end of the year, to scrutinise decisions taken in the course of this pandemic, and learn lessons for future pandemics.

It would take a take a person-centred, human rights based approach with a focus on outcomes and timely reporting to identify lessons and recommendations. Particular consideration would also be given to the ‘four harms’ of the pandemic:

• direct health impacts of COVID-19, including cases and deaths in care homes
• other non COVID health impacts
• societal impacts, including education
• economic impacts”

The request for feedback lasts between now and 30^th September, with the Scottish Government simultaneously consulting the Lord President of the Court of Session to find a judge to lead the wider inquiry.

Whilst we are happy to see some engagement on the subject matter of the inquiry, we do have a little concern about how it’s being undertaken. Firstly, feedback will only be taken by email, a risky prospect when some people still do not have access to the internet (between five and ten percent in Scotland). This is a still more concerning problem when you realise that many of those disproportionately affected by coronavirus coincide with those in groups least likely to have access to the internet. We would suggest that the Scottish Government opens up avenues for response by more traditional methods too- remember, digital first can be alright, digital only is not.

Secondly, there may be questions about the duration of the engagement. Respondents will have 35 days to send in their feedback. We’re not too concerned about this, for several reasons, including one we will go into in a little more depth below. Context is very important when determining the duration of your engagement, and in this case where there is a relatively simple question (on the face of it) being asked, and a need to act quickly, a shorter timescale might be appropriate.

Where there might be questions is whether there is enough information provided to allow for proper comment in that time. The summary of the approach being planned doesn’t provide much actual information. Whilst this is not a sin in and of itself, it is likely to cut down the volume of useful information garnered by the exercise. In our original piece, we highlighted one of the difficulties in consulting on the terms of these sort of inquiries: that the process of the inquiry might become confused with the subject matter of the inquiry. It seems to us that the approach being taken here is the best way to invite a slew of information which would be better considered as part of the inquiry itself. We would suggest that it would be better to a little more comprehensively outline what is actually being asked for, and the limits of the requested information, so that ministers are not overwhelmed with non-process related evidence.

It might be argued that we are being a bit nit-picky and particularly on the third point our concerns may not bear fruit, but the most important part of any inquiry into a major crisis is ensuring that it asks the right questions, in the right way, and allows useful and easily applied response. Although none of the issues we have highlighted here are likely to prove fatal to the process, we would suggest that there are better ways to do it.