‘Absence of humanity’: Helen MacNamara’s evidence to Covid inquiry

Helen MacNamara, who held the position of deputy cabinet secretary, has provided additional incriminating testimony to the Covid inquiry regarding the administration's response to the pandemic. Her testimony included criticisms of misogyny, overconfidence, and a deficiency of preparation and empathy. Here are some of the crucial segments of her testimony.

MacNamara felt let down when Boris Johnson didn't prevent her from being targeted by misogynistic comments from Dominic Cummings.

During the inquiry on Monday, there were revelations that Cummings desired to dismiss MacNamara. He accused No 10 of evading sharp criticism from her. Following these statements, MacNamara expressed her disappointment that the prime minister did not reprimand Cummings for his violent and sexist language. She stated that his choice of words was extremely inappropriate and did not align with what is expected of a decent and respectful person in our society.

MacNamara presented written evidence stating that women employed at No 10 and the Cabinet Office were subjected to sexist treatment. This treatment was impacting their work and causing them unnecessary distress and frustration. The workplace culture was defined by macho and heroic qualities, which wasn't limited to men as women can exhibit these traits as well. However, this culture posed a problem as it restricted the scope of debate and discussion. Junior employees were frequently interrupted, and it felt like individual egos were contaminating everything. This environment was counterproductive, particularly when the country was in dire need of careful and reflective decision-making.

During the inquiry, she stated that she had often asked for counseling due to the stress she experienced, but her requests were not granted.

She sent an email to the employees expressing her apprehension regarding the effects of the past few months on the teams. She specifically mentioned that the company is not giving sufficient assistance to the individuals who were working during the peak of the pandemic. She urgently requested for the arrangement of a professional counsellor that can be recommended to those who need support. This is due to the fact that she has received reports of several people who broke down emotionally and cried in front of her, which is concerning.

Katharine Hammond, who leads the civil contingencies secretariat, expressed her agreement with the issue in an email sent in April 2020. She suggested several solutions that could address the problem. One of them is having more women with professional backgrounds involved in the discussions, such as the chief nursing officer, commissioner, and head of NCA. Hammond also believes that one or two men at DG level need to be informed that their behavior contributes to the problem and they should stop it. Additionally, to ensure that everyone can participate in the conversation, there shouldn't be a room full of men and all women on Zoom. Lastly, Hammond suggests putting more women in the chair.

The government's headquarters had to create strategies in case the Prime Minister was unable to carry out their duties due to Covid.

MacNamara had to improvise because there were no plans in place to handle the chaotic situation that was happening. In March of 2020, when the prime minister contracted Covid, she expressed her worries about the constitution. In a message to her colleagues, she asked, "What do we do if the prime minister's condition worsens? We can't predict the outcome of this disease. If the situation deteriorates beyond repair, we may have to consider scenario C or a variant, such as long-term incapacitation. I don't believe there will be a constitutional crisis that lasts a prolonged period of uncertainty."

At the start of 2020, the government was already facing challenges due to the Brexit situation. They were in a difficult position from the beginning.

During the inquiry, MacNamara stated that when Covid became a concern in January 2020, the UK government was already dealing with another rare event. Certain aspects of the system were undergoing change, and some were still awaiting clarification. Many government officials, including ministers and advisors, were unsure of their roles. There was no clear standard of working with Mr. Johnson, and the Cabinet Office and Whitehall had a habit of working unhealthily. In terms of relationships between the civil service and the prime minister and his team, there was a lack of trust. This is normal during an election period, which increases the risk of decision-making in government. Following the reshuffle in February 2020, there was only one week of normal government before the crisis hit.

Choosing to follow scientific evidence was seen as an easy way out.

MacNamara expressed doubts about the government's reliance on the phrase "following the science." She saw the value in using it for communication, but believed that it was not enough. She felt that it would be ridiculous to say that they were "following the economics." In her written evidence, she noted that she and her colleagues had concerns about basing decisions solely on the opinions of a small group of scientists and medical professionals. She believed that this was not fair or democratic. MacNamara was of the opinion that the government needed to take a more comprehensive approach, considering the ethical, moral, social and economic implications of their decisions. This was especially important when dealing with the supply of essential resources such as food and medical equipment. She believed that elected officials were better equipped to make these difficult choices.

In an email she sent, she mentioned: "By the way, besides my brief emotional outburst regarding the male-dominated language, I have some OPINIONS regarding how we are treating 'science' as if it is infallible. We do not always follow the path that science indicates... I should add that Chris W [Whitty] is an outstanding researcher, so I am not criticizing him, but I believe that the solution is not solely based on what is logical."

. The cabinet was repeatedly reassured by Matt Hancock that there was a comprehensive strategy in place to deal with Covid-19, however, this was not the case.

MacNamara stated in written testimony that the health secretary repeatedly assured the cabinet that plans were in place. At the time, she believed his confidence was based on having reviewed the plans himself. She does not recall anyone expressing skepticism or uncertainty about the sufficiency of the plans until Mark Sweeney, a DG in the Cabinet Office responsible for domestic policy coordination, raised concerns. Sweeney and Jonathan Black were both involved in the early stages of the Covid response. During the process of developing pandemic legislation, Sweeney determined that no considerations had been given beyond the Department of Health for how "non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)" would be implemented in reality.

Johnson's cheerful attitude and satisfaction hindered the reaction.

According to MacNamara, Johnson was very sure that the UK would easily handle the initial stages of the pandemic. Cabinate members tried to convince him otherwise, but he didn't seem to listen to their concerns about the uncertainty of the situation. During early meetings, Johnson believed that the UK would be fine and didn't want to overreact to something that he believed wouldn't have a big impact. Additionally, he thought the UK was adequately prepared to handle the situation.

In early March, I attended a meeting on behalf of the cabinet secretary while the prime minister was away. The topic of discussion was whether the prime minister should shake hands with people during a hospital visit, and there was joking about alternative greetings. However, I felt uneasy about the lighthearted attitude towards the pandemic. There was a sense that the Italians were overreacting and that we would handle the situation better. I felt this was misguided. I spoke up about the need for clear guidance on what was the right thing to do, and how people were looking for guidance to protect themselves and their communities. I expressed my concern about the lack of humanity in the government's response to Covid.

She wrote in her statement that when looking back on the situation, there were several overarching issues that made managing the response difficult. These problems included: 1) too much decision-making power being concentrated in No 10, which created a narrow viewpoint, 2) a lack of understanding on how large parts of the government operate, 3) a strong and inflexible ideological approach to decisions, 4) key people in departments not being involved in or invested in decision-making, 5) the usual purpose of cabinet government not being served, 6) the No 10 private office being under unreasonable pressure, and 7) a lack of compassion or empathy.