While belated, the Taoiseach’s announcement on Wednesday that academic Anne Scott has been chosen to lead the Government’s potential evaluation committee tasked with reviewing the response to the Covid-19 pandemic by the State is nonetheless welcomed. The initiation of the evaluation is projected to start in the coming weeks.
The effort by Ireland to investigate one of its most significant crises is considered late when compared to the international community. Learning from such unprecedented experience is vital to equip the State to effectively deal with future adversities.
The term “evaluation committee” somewhat reflects Simon Harris and his government associates’ earnestness in making the process as non-threatening and unassuming as possible. The unapproachable and fruitless UK parliamentary investigation that devolved into political one-upmanship is likely a reference point in their decision-making process. Ireland’s problematic history with public tribunals and inquiries into crucial public issues due to extensive legal disputes, exorbitant costs and unfair time length for completion, makes this different approach more understandable.
However, there are likely to be objections that the intended process lacks authority and independence. Scott and her fellow panel members do not hold any legal powers and can face rejection from potential participants. Administrative support for the review will be provided by the Civil Service, giving ground to suggestions that civil servants will be reviewing their own performance.
Over the years, since Covid-19 emerged, there has been extensive debate – some knowledgeable and other parts misleading – surrounding the effectiveness and flaws of the public health strategies it invoked. An upside to the unhurried launch of this review is that it now has access to a larger data pool from which conclusions can be drawn and provides a broader opportunity for significant international comparisons.
There continue to be pertinent concerns regarding specific matters, notably the handling of care homes during the early stages of the pandemic and the decision for a ‘substantial festive period’ in December 2020. Further queries concern whether tactics like closure of schools persisted for an excessive duration, and the ensuing mental health effects.
It is improbable that these contentious topics will be satisfactorily resolved for all parties, especially those who suffered the loss of family or friends. Regrettably, this appears to be an unavoidable fallout from the lack of implementing an effective, fair, and constitutionally steadfast public inquiry system. An indication of the Government’s resolve regarding this evaluation will be judged by the resources it dedicates to this cause.