MPs and Peers Express Concern Over Perceived Bias in COVID Inquiry Outcome
A group of politicians and scientists has signed an open letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak calling for the COVID Inquiry to change tack because they fear it has a pre-determined outcome in favour of lockdowns.
The letter was written in support of children’s rights campaign group Us For Them, which has threatened the inquiry with legal action if it does not widen its terms of reference to fully take into account lockdown harms.
Signatories including former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith say they have “serious concerns” about the approach of the inquiry, which has so far cost an estimated £145 million.
They say the inquiry is creating the impression, reflected in print and social media commentary, “of having predetermined that lockdowns were necessary, proportionate and justified, notwithstanding the very extensive harms they have caused, and continue to cause.”
The signatories, including Lord Goldsmith, Lord Frost, and Baroness Fox, claim the inquiry “appears to have failed to consider whether there was any alternative to the lockdowns that were imposed on this country and has instead focused on whether lockdowns should have been implemented harder, sooner and for longer.”
High-profile lockdown sceptic scientists including Professor Karol Sikora, Professor David Paton, and Chao Wang also signed, together with a number of Conservative and DUP MPs including Sir Desmond Swayne, Philip Davis, and Ian Paisley. No Labour MPs or peers have so far put their names to the letter.
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
The letter asks Mr. Sunak, who appeared before the inquiry to give evidence last week, to widen its terms of reference to ensure that metrics other than deaths recorded as COVID-19 related—such as lost quality-adjusted life years (QALY)—are taken into account.
Mr. Sunak addressed the matter of QALY in his evidence, but was told by lead counsel Hugo Leith, KC that he was not interested in this approach.
The letter asks for the impact of all non-pharmaceutical interventions to be properly assessed for their risks and benefits, including social distancing, masks, travel restrictions, testing measures, and restrictions on mixing, such as the “rule of six.”
It adds that, “Any fair consideration of the harms of lockdowns and other measures must include the short and long-term impact of approximately £400 billion of debt incurred by the Government to fund pandemic-related policy decisions which must now be repaid by future generations.”
Legal Challenge Possible
Echoing the legal letter sent to the inquiry’s chair, Baroness Hallett, the politicians and experts urge Mr. Sunak to ensure the witness selection process is fair and the treatment of all experts who appear is even-handed.
“We are aware that a letter was sent to the Inquiry on 15 December 2023 by JMW Solicitors acting on the instructions of Us For Them which has signaled that, unless the Inquiry can promptly correct its course to address the issues of predetermination and fairness, the validity of its eventual findings are likely to be subject to a legal challenge.
“We support the objective of that letter and we would support the principle of a legal challenge to the Inquiry’s findings should it fail now to address these critical issues.”
Treatment of Witnesses
A leading lockdown-sceptic scientist, Oxford Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine Carl Heneghan, warned after his appearance before the inquiry that it risked descending into a “farce” with its focus on WhatsApp exchanges and insults rather than a forensic examination of what was done to the country.
He accused the counsel of being “uninterested in substance and obsessed with reading out rude words found in other people’s private messages.”
Speaking to The Epoch Times, Us For Them co-founder Molly Kingsley said: “The main issues are about the failure to examine cost benefits, and this very unequal and unfair treatment of witnesses.
“There have been things said about anti-lockdown scientists, such as Sunetra Guptra, and they’re not even there to defend themselves.”
She added: “The other main issue we have is there are people being allowed to take to the stand who are often conflicted in their interests. There is a clear conflict of a personal, institutional or financial nature.”
A spokesman for the inquiry has previously rejected any suggestion that it has pre-determined its findings.
“The inquiry is entirely independent and Baroness Hallett has made clear that she will not reach any conclusion until she has considered all of the evidence.
“The inquiry will be considering important issues such as the impact of lockdowns and the impact of the pandemic on children and young people, the care sector, as well as business and procurement in due course. Our modular approach is clearly set out on our website.”
