Midsummer Day, 2023
There are now big political names giving oral evidence at the Covid Inquiry for the first “module” covering the preparedness of the government for a pandemic.
This is just a brief post to point out that you should not over-emphasise the theatrics of certain exchanges between the witnesses and counsel, however dramatic or even gladiatorial those exchanges seem to be.
This is not a film or a play; it is not even a trial.
The best way to understand what each witness has to say, once the evidence has been given, is to click onto the “documents” part of the Covid Inquiry site.
And then you should find at least two documents. The first is the witness statement of the relevant witness provided before the questioning, and the second is the transcript of the questioning.
For example, this is David Cameron’s witness statement – and this is the transcript of his session.
Sometimes the Inquiry will also publish other documentary evidence that has come up in the oral evidence sessions, for example this.
By comparing the witness statement with the oral evidence (and any additional documentary evidence) you will see exactly where the Inquiry is probing – and also where the Inquiry may not be satisfied by the content of a witness statement.
The nature of any inquiry does not lend itself to sudden courtroom fireworks; indeed, a line of questioning may seem very dull to onlookers until you realise what is said in the statement.
Remember, inquiries are often reliant on the evidence provided – a sort of GIGO principle.
And these oral sessions are intended to complement the written witness statements, and so the transcript should be read with the statement.
Those who only read media summaries, or catch snippets of the more notable exchanges, often end up surprised with what any inquiry produces.
Before you form Very Strong Opinions on what witnesses to the inquiry are supposed to have said, take a few moments to read the witness statement and then the transcript for yourself.
And you are lucky: because of the internet and an impressive Covid Inquiry website this – actually intellectually satisfying – exercise can be done with ease.
*
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
I have a strong opinion on what Osborne said yesterday. The austerity experiment he and Cameron undertook was the underlying cause of the UK’s continued economic misery. Most economists regard his actions as damaging and unnecessary.
Apart from weakening services to cope with the pandemic it also contributed to Brexit. A lot of people saw voting Leave as giving the government a kicking. Others blamed our dismal economic performance on the EU.
John Crace summed up Osborne’s self serving evidence well in the Guardian’s political sketch yesterday.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/20/george-osborne-sings-praises-of-true-pandemic-hero-himself
Ah, it appears that we share a space in a Venn diagram (Blobagram perhaps) where people who learn from DAG also learn from Mr Crace
Thank you for this David. The way in which this inquiry is being carried out and the exemplary use of the internet seems to be generating that rare thing, genuine (rather than paper) transparency. I am particularly struck by Hallet’s acute sense of priorities by starting with the soul shaking testimonies of the family members of the deceased. I think the increasing emphasis on “lived experience” as a form of knowledge has radical implications, when it is intelligently placed alongside more traditional forms of expertise. I am probably overstating it but I see this a profound development. It may be one step along the road to addressing the way in which a limited sense of what constitutes legitimate knowledge led to our intense social divisions and hyperpartizan politics.
Starting with the victims’ inhuman experiences, then moving on to the reasoning of those who were responsible for such torture is also the method employed by Wyn Williams at the Post Office Scandal Inquiry.
It is a method which has reduced me to tears on a number of occasions.
This is a helpful point about the availability of the witness statements and transcripts, thank you, and the value of reading both together.
But I fear that most of us won’t have time for that. So I hope that you will still be doing some commentaries.