Source · Select Committees · Health and Social Care Committee
Recommendation 123
123
Accepted in Part
Scientific advice was cited in justification for increasingly fine-grained restrictions— with which some of the...
Conclusion
Scientific advice was cited in justification for increasingly fine-grained restrictions— with which some of the Government’s scientific advisers were often visibly uncomfortable. When Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, was asked on 3 November why children’s outdoor sport was banned, despite by then widespread evidence that outdoor transmission of covid was very rare, Sir Patrick said: They have had advice from us in terms of the general principles and some of the areas, but, as I say, not down to individual specific activities like that, and the same is true on the medical side as well. […] Chair: Would you advise that children’s outdoor sports should banned? Sir Patrick Vallance: As Chris said, we just do not go down to that level of individual activities.192
Government response summary AI-generated
The government partially accepts the recommendation, stating it has published scientific evidence and advice, including SAGE papers, within 10 days of meetings, arguing this strikes a reasonable balance for transparency. They commit to continuing to publish advice and note this will be considered by the COVID-19 Public Inquiry.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Government Response
Accepted in Part
HM Government · verbatim extract
Accepted in Part
The government partially accepts this recommendation. The government has published the scientific evidence and advice, including SAGE minutes and papers, on GOV.UK, as quickly as practicable and in line with appropriate safeguards for advice provided to Ministers. In total, 437 SAGE meetings were held between 22 January 2020 and 22 February 2022, 114 of which were full SAGE meetings. All papers and minutes from these meetings were published within 10 days of the meeting. The government considers that this strike a reasonable balance between the need for transparency and speed and the need to ensure that the advice given to Ministers is considered fully, and that sensitive policy discussions can take place confidentially. The government is committed to transparency and will continue to publish, where appropriate, the evidence base for advice, as well as the advice itself, in a timely manner. This will also be a key area of consideration for the COVID-19 Public Inquiry. The government has also ensured that there is strong external and structured challenge to scientific advice. The government has facilitated opportunities for challenge to SAGE, including through the scientific journals and the media. Moreover, the government has been clear that it receives advice from many different sources across government and academia. SAGE itself is also supported by a wide range of topic-specific groups which bring together a variety of expertise across different scientific disciplines. This provides an important source of challenge, scrutiny, and different perspectives on the evidence. For example, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) brings together academics from multiple institutions to provide real-time modelling of the epidemic in the UK. Many of the academics on SPI-M are not part of SAGE. Similarly, the Environmental Modelling Group (EMG) is made up of independent scientists from universities across the UK. These sub-groups provide a key source of independent challenge and advice to SAGE and the government.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗