Ireland's Covid review is not public inquiry and 'not here to point fingers', chair says
Senior decision-makers' engagement with the State's pandemic review will not be aired in public, the chairwoman of the Covid-19 Evaluation said.
Professor Anne Scott said the process was not a public inquiry and was 'not here to point fingers'.
Advertisement
She made the comments as she urged the public to share their experiences of the pandemic to inform its assessment of Ireland's response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Prof Scott described the process as a non-statutory, non-adversarial independent review and repeatedly stressed it was not a public inquiry.
It is expected to use engagement from different figures and groups, 'voluminous' documentation, and research to produce a final report within 12-18 months.
She said the expert panel will produce an 'actionable' report of recommendations which will be presented to the Taoiseach and they would 'hope' that they will then be actioned by the Government.
Advertisement
The evaluation's engagement with senior politicians, civil servants and experts who informed decisions made during the pandemic will not be held in public.
A transcript will not be published but the interviews will be recorded.
Asked whether the engagement of figures such as health ministers and senior members of the National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET), who appeared on people's television screens regularly during the health emergency, would be publicly available to view, Prof Scott said it was 'unlikely'.
She added: 'In my view, at this moment, it is unlikely that that kind of information or evidence gathering will be done in public.'
Advertisement
Prof Scott said that individuals would not be named, before adding 'we are not here to point fingers'.
Chairwoman of the Covid-19 Evaluation Professor Anne Scott at a press conference in Dublin (Gráinne Ní Aodha/PA)
She said: 'This is actually an evaluation, and an evaluation on learning lessons so that we strengthen and improve our decision-making for the future.
'People were well used to seeing the chief medical officer or the taoiseach or whoever they happened to be on the screens every night during the pandemic, they remember what they were seeing and what they were doing.
'I don't think it requires us to actually rerun that.
Advertisement
'As I've said, this isn't about reliving the past.
'It is about learning lessons.
'It's about being open and developing a non-adversarial, co-operative means of getting as full a picture as we can in terms of what happened.
'As one of your colleagues has already pointed out, a lot of the formal decisions that were made that we live with the impacts of whatever they happen to be in terms of restrictions, is already in the public arena.
Advertisement
'One of the key things we don't have, however, is what we're focusing on today, which is actually trying to engage with the public to get an insight into their lived experience, what was it like for them to live through the pandemic.'
In making an appeal for people to engage with the evaluation, Prof Scott said it was 'vitally important that we hear from people across the country'.
She said that the pandemic affected everyone but had a 'profound impact on some', and mentioned women giving birth alone, curtailed education, and restricted hospital visits.
Prof Scott said it was important to hear from people about what it was like to live through those moments and 'learn from it' as a country.
Adults can engage with the evaluation at
covid19evaluation.ie
until July 1st.
A second process is expected to be set up to capture the views of people aged under 18.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
Human rights group Liberty has lost a bid to bring legal action against the equalities watchdog over its consultation in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on gender. The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024. Following the ruling, EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said the commission's approach 'has been fair and appropriate throughout'. She continued: 'Our six-week consultation period represents a balance between gathering comprehensive stakeholder input and addressing the urgent need for clarity. We're particularly encouraged by the thousands of consultation responses already received and look forward to further meaningful engagement through the rest of the process. 'The current climate of legal uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody – particularly those with protected characteristics who rightly expect clarity about their rights. A swift resolution to this uncertainty will benefit everyone, including trans people.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
ITV ‘censored' Martina Navratilova for claiming boxer Imane Khelif was male
ITV has been accused of 'censoring' Martina Navratilova for stating a controversial boxer was male. Dozens of other comments were also 'hidden' from the broadcaster's X feed after it posted a story about Imane Khelif, the boxer who won a gold medal after being allowed to compete in the women's event at last year's Olympic Games. Earlier this week, Khelif was banned from women's boxing by the regulator, World Boxing. A leaked blood test showed the Olympian has male XY chromosomes. ITV later published a story headlined 'Naming Imane Khelif has caused 'immeasurable psychological damage' after the Algerian Boxing Federation complained about World Boxing's decision to name the boxer. Ms Navratilova, the nine-time Wimbledon singles champion who has campaigned for gay rights, commented: 'But a male beating the crap out of women is not too bad, apparently.' This comment was hidden by the broadcaster and reinstated only after users complained. Dozens of other comments remain hidden, even though many of them simply state that the boxer is male. Fiona McAnena, the director of campaigns at the women's rights charity Sex Matters, demanded an apology from ITV. She said: 'It's shocking that the UK's largest commercial broadcast network has censored hundreds of gender-critical comments on social media, many of them simply referring to Imane Khelif as male. 'Hiding a simple truth about a major news story is a remarkable failure by a journalistic organisation. 'It's scandalous that ITV hid a reply from tennis legend Martina Navratilova, which they reinstated after an outcry. But what of the hundreds of other replies that remain censored, some of which do nothing but quote JK Rowling about the boxing row? 'ITV cannot simply dismiss this as a social media storm. Unless ITV's leadership apologises for hiding factual comments from the public, it will damage its credibility as a respected news organisation.' Khelif won a gold medal at last year's Paris Olympics after being allowed to compete in the women's event even though the boxer had previously been disqualified from the 2023 World Championships when tests indicated the presence of male chromosomes. Earlier this week, World Boxing banned Khelif from fighting against women in the Eindhoven World Cup, unless the champion underwent a sex test, which was refused. Users of the social platform X can hide responses they do not like, meaning they do not automatically appear in people's feeds. But they cannot delete them, and followers can look at hidden responses if they choose. Dozens of other commenters were hidden for stating that the boxer was male. One, Hatkeshiator, said: 'It's hardly worse than pretending to be a chick so you can beat chicks up while they fear a ban if they complain. Get a grip.' Kyle Reese, another X user, wrote: 'I think the damage his mentally-ill man inflicted on women was far greater.' Florence Jeffries said: 'He punches women. What about the harm, physical and mental, suffered by them? He knows tests have shown him to have XY chromosomes.' Another commenter with the username Spacedonkey wrote: 'ITV has proven that trans ideology is misogynistic. ITV literally wants to silence women and has hidden a post by sports icon Martina Navratilova. ITV, how low can you sink?' Rebecca Marian said: 'Sending female boxers into the ring to box against a male could have resulted in life-changing injuries or death for the women. I frankly don't give a stuff for Khelif's 'psychological damage'. He should never have been there.' A commenter called Steve wrote: 'Keep hiding the replies – you're a disgrace. The women he cheated against matter so much more than his so-called fragile mental state.' One was hidden for retweeting a comment by JK Rowling, who said: 'The media had all the evidence they needed, but chose to distort, obscure, and deflect because reality was politically inconvenient. They said Khelif was female. They were wrong. They said concerns were bigoted. They were wrong.' An ITV source claimed they used an automated moderation system, adding: 'It was initially set to a very strict moderation threshold, but has now been adjusted to be less stringent.' The broadcaster denied that comments had been selectively hidden.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Russia is at war with Britain and US no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
Russia is at war with Britain, the US is no longer a reliable ally and the UK has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient, according to one of the three authors of the strategic defence review. Fiona Hill, from county Durham, became the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term and contributed to the British government's strategy, and made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill says, describing the UK's geopolitical situation as caught between 'the rock' of Vladimir Putin's Russia and 'the hard place' of Donald Trump's increasingly unpredictable United States. The best known of the reviewers appointed by Labour, alongside Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and retired general Sir Richard Barrons, Hill, 59, said she was happy to take on the role because it was 'such a major pivot point in global affairs'. She remains a dual national even after living over 30 years in the US. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Hill says, arguing that Putin sees the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. As part of that long-term effort, Russia is already 'menacing the UK in various different ways,' she says, citing 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' The conclusion, Hill says, is that 'Russia is at war with us'. Though the foreign policy expert, a long time Russia watcher, says she first made a similar warning in 2015, in a revised version of a book she wrote about the Russian president with Clifford Gaddy, reflecting on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. 'We said Putin had declared war on the West,' she says. At the time, other experts disagreed, but Hill says events since demonstrate 'he obviously had, and we haven't been paying attention to it'. The Russian leader, she argues, sees the fight in Ukraine as 'part of a proxy war with the United States; that's how he has persuaded China, North Korea and Iran to join in'. Putin believes, she says, that Ukraine has already been decoupled from the US relationship because 'Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. When it comes to defence, however, Hill says that the UK cannot rely on the military umbrella of the US as during the Cold War and in the generation that followed, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. In her description, the UK 'is having to manage its number one ally', though the challenge is not to overreact because 'you don't want to have a rupture'. This way of thinking even appears in the defence review published earlier this week, which says 'the UK's long-standing assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain' – a rare acknowledgement in a British government document of how far and how fast Trumpism is affecting foreign policy certainties. The review team reported to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and defence secretary John Healey. Most of Hill's interaction were with Healey however, and Hill said she only met the prime minister once – describing him as 'pretty charming … in a proper and correct way' and as 'having read all the papers'. Hill is not drawn on if she advised Starmer or Healey on how to deal with Donald Trump, saying instead 'the advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting'. She says simply that the Trump White House 'is not an administration, it is a court' in which a transactional president is driven by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. She adds that unlike his close circle, Trump has 'a special affinity for the UK' based partly on his own family ties (his mother came from the Hebridean island of Lewis, emigrating to New York aged 18) and an admiration for the royal family, particularly the late Queen. 'He talked endlessly about that,' she says. On the other hand, Hill is no fan of the populist right administration in the White House and worries it could come to Britain if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to develop with the encouragement of Republicans from the US. Already, she notes, Reform UK won a string of council elections last month, including in her native Durham, and leader Nigel Farage wants to emulate some of the aggressive efforts to restructure government led by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) before his falling out with Trump. 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has,' she says. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steel works and coal mines.' Hill's argument is that in a time of profound uncertainty, Britain needs greater internal cohesion if it is to protect itself. 'We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more,' she says, arguing that Britain needs to have 'a different mindset' based as much on traditional defence as on social resilience. Some of that, Hill says, is about a greater recognition of the level of external threat and initiatives for greater integration, by teaching first aid in schools or encouraging more teenagers to join school cadet forces, a recommendation of the defence review. 'What you need to do is get people engaged in all kinds of different ways in support of their communities,' she says. Hill says she sees that deindustrialisation and a rise of inequality in Russia and the US has contributed to the rise in national populism in both countries. Politicians in Britain, or elsewhere, 'have to be much more creative and engage people where they are at' as part of a 'national effort'. If this seems far away from a conventional view of defence, that is because it is, though Hill also argues that traditional conceptions of war are changing as technology evolves and with it what makes a potent force. 'People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here,' Hill says. 'The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet.' Her aim, therefore, is not just to be critical but to propose solutions. Hill recalls that a close family friend, on hearing that she had taken on the defence review, had told her: ''Don't tell us how shite we are, tell us what we can do, how we can fix things.' People understand that we have a problem and that the world has changed.'
