Government ignored help of local councils for too long

The government’s initial response to the coronavirus crisis was hampered by the absence of a long-term strategy and a lack of clarity about who was responsible for what.

That is the conclusion of a new report, released by the Institute for Government, which examines decisions made in three areas: economic support, coronavirus testing and the lockdown.

The report accuses the government of relying ‘too much on an illusion that following the science would provide the answers’ and therefore deferring decisions on lockdown.

The paper, Decision making in a crisis, also says that Health Secretary Matt Hancock did not give enough thought to what the target of 100,000 tests a day was intended to achieve and how, as well as criticising him for not seeking the input of local public health officials.

The Institute for Government says that the government needed to be clearer about the role of science advice and its limitations, particularly in the early stages of the crisis when it looked to its scientists to generate policy, not just advise on it, and that it was unclear who was responsible for different aspects of the testing regime, which made it difficult to assign responsibility for remedying gaps and failures.

It recommends that the government should: be clearer about the extent to which it wants SAGE to incorporate social and economic concerns into its advice; clearly identify the responsibilities of different departments and agencies where those responsibilities overlap; use rapid consultation to build support for policies and avoid the need for U-turns; use scientific advice to inform rather than determine policy; and develop its strategy before setting targets that will be hard to resile from.