The Covid-19 Inquiry wants us to be less prepared for the next pandemic

I was the Head of Research for the Covid Recovery Group. The Covid-19 Inquiry is a shambles. The evidence it has relied on has been disproven. Its conclusions are wrong and will hurt us in the future.

On 20 November 2025, Baroness Hallett published her Module 2 report for the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, the second of ten anticipated reports, examining “Core decision-making and political governance” across the four UK nations during the pandemic. While it had its moment in the spotlight, the report was quickly buried by the chaos in the run-up to and following the Budget. The Inquiry’s key findings included that the UK response was “too little, too late,” that a “toxic and chaotic culture” existed within Downing Street, and most controversially, that approximately 23,000 lives could have been saved if lockdown had been imposed one week earlier. This is a figure derived from modelling by Professor Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College.

If we follow the conclusions of the Inquiry, we will be less prepared, not better prepared, for the next pandemic. The Inquiry has uncritically accepted the premise that earlier and harder lockdowns were the solution, ignoring the vast body of evidence suggesting the opposite. It has also failed to weigh up the full costs and consequences of lockdown restrictions. It has refused to listen to those who questioned the orthodoxy. And it will cost the taxpayer over £200 million, making it one of the most expensive inquiries in British history.​ Not to mention that it is not due to finish until 2027. Sweden’s Covid inquiry took 20 months and cost a fraction of ours.

My experiences as Head of Research of the Covid Recovery Group

I was the Head of Research for the Covid Recovery Group (CRG), the only parliamentary group that opposed lockdown regulations, formed during the second national lockdown in November 2020. The formation of the CRG followed the first serious attempt at uniting MPs against the Covid restrictions that occurred in September 2020 with the Brady Amendment, tabled by Sir Graham Brady, Chair of the 1922 Committee, which sought to ensure the House of Commons would debate and vote on any future coronavirus measures before they came into force. This was a critical moment in establishing the principle that Parliament should scrutinise restrictions on our basic civil liberties and that Ministers should not rule by diktat. I was honoured to work on that effort.

We met weekly with CRG member MPs, poring over the data, challenging the Government’s modelling, and producing briefings to arm backbenchers, and in many cases, supportive Government Ministers, with the facts to push back against the pro-lockdown consensus that had taken hold of our Government and country. Our group was led with outstanding courage and principle by the Rt Hon Lord Mark Harper (Member of Parliament at the time), as Chair, and the Rt Hon Steve Baker, as Deputy Chair.