Ireland’s Covid Evaluation

EU member states continue to grapple with the political, economic, and social legacies created by their management of the Covid-19 pandemic. From public health restrictions to economic rescue packages, these unprecedented measures have left a lasting impact on societies, with many citizens calling for answers on the decisions made during the crisis.

Ireland is no different in this regard.

In response to this demand, the government has recently confirmed that it will conduct a “comprehensive evaluation” of how the country managed Covid-19, with agreed terms of reference that encompass the health service’s response across hospitals, community settings, and nursing homes, as well as the broader economic and social impact, including on education and businesses.

This evaluation will be undertaken by a multi-disciplinary panel of experts chaired by Professor Anne Scott. The panel’s primary aim is to make recommendations on guiding principles and processes that could: (1) strengthen decision-making and transparency; (2) help in assessing and balancing complex trade-offs while fostering agility in crisis scenarios; and (3) provide a framework to ensure democratic processes and civil rights are protected in the context of whole-of-society responses to rapidly evolving crises. The government hopes this evaluation will bring clarity to its Covid-19 response and foster a stronger basis for future crisis management.

However, this evaluation is limited in scope and authority. Notably, the panel will lack the power to compel witnesses to attend or documents to be produced. It will not be able to assign blame or hold individuals accountable, regardless of any potential criticisms of Ireland’s political and medical leadership during the crisis. This lack of power has led many to question the evaluation’s effectiveness, as it appears to rely entirely on voluntary cooperation from officials, departments, and relevant stakeholders.

There are concerns that this evaluation may replicate much of the work already conducted by Ireland’s Special Committee on Covid-19 Response, established by order of the Dáil (parliament) on May 6, 2020. The Committee was tasked with examining the state’s response to Covid-19 but was similarly constrained by a lack of legal powers, largely because a 2011 referendum on giving Oireachtas committees powers to compel witnesses was defeated. Without this power, the Special Committee could only request, not require, witness attendance or document submission.

Despite these limitations, the Special Committee conducted 67 public sessions over 30 days of hearings and received over 275 written submissions. Under the chairmanship of then-MP, now MEP, Michael McNamara, the committee was widely praised for its thorough approach. However, in its final report, the Committee expressed deep frustration over its inability to get clear answers, particularly on the high death toll in nursing homes, where 985 residents—56% of Ireland’s Covid-19 fatalities—lost their lives. The committee noted this was “totally disproportionate” for a population group comprising only 0.65% of Ireland’s population, who were particularly frail and vulnerable. It is unclear how the upcoming evaluation, lacking even the minimal powers of the Special Committee, will make significant progress on these unresolved issues.

The absence of investigatory powers in this new evaluation has drawn substantial political criticism. Sinn Féin, Ireland’s main opposition party, has voiced concern, as have various advocacy groups and bereaved families. Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald has stated that the evaluation’s lack of compellability is problematic, warning that this setup could hinder transparency and closure for families affected by the pandemic. She remarked, “What Government is proposing does not have the confidence of many bereaved families. They need to know that this will not be a whitewash.” This skepticism is shared by many who fear that the evaluation will fail to uncover critical insights or hold anyone accountable for potential failures in the pandemic response.

For many people, what they truly want is an approach similar to that adopted by Ireland’s neighbor, the United Kingdom, which established the UK Covid-19 Inquiry. That inquiry, conducted under the Inquiries Act 2005, had the legal authority to compel witnesses and documents. By taking evidence under oath, the UK Inquiry ensured that individuals could be held accountable for their statements, making it a comprehensive investigation into the government’s pandemic response. This statutory inquiry has given UK citizens a sense of transparency and accountability that many in Ireland feel is missing from their government’s approach.

The Irish government, however, has chosen a more “collaborative” model, which emphasizes a narrative-driven evaluation rather than a fact-finding inquiry with legally binding powers. Former Prime Minister Leo Varadkar hinted at this approach in January 2024, stating that when reviewing the government’s Covid-19 response, it is essential to remember that “everyone can be an expert in hindsight,” and that decisions had to be made based on the best information available at the time. This perspective reflects a reluctance to delve into a critical analysis of past actions, favoring a focus on lessons learned rather than potential culpability.

This approach is also in line with the European Union’s own self-assessment of its pandemic response. The EU has largely portrayed its actions as a success story, emphasizing how member states collaborated to secure vaccines, share medical equipment, and protect workers. The official EU narrative highlights solidarity and resilience, downplaying areas where individual liberties may have been curtailed, or long-term economic costs have yet to be fully addressed. Statements from the EU commend member states for going “above and beyond to support each other,” leaving little room for discussions of blame or accountability.

Yet, for tens of millions of European citizens, the pandemic experience was deeply unsettling. Many saw it as a period marked by state overreach, with lockdowns, travel restrictions, and economic shutdowns that profoundly affected civil liberties. For these individuals, the pandemic was not only a public health crisis but also an exercise in state power and control that often disregarded the social, economic, and emotional costs to individuals and families. The Irish government’s current evaluation approach, which avoids confronting these sensitive issues directly, may not provide the meaningful accountability that many feel is necessary to restore trust in public institutions.

The evaluation’s limited scope could inadvertently deepen public mistrust rather than heal it. By lacking powers of compulsion and accountability, the process may appear to some as a superficial attempt at transparency, reinforcing the perception that political leaders are unwilling to address potential missteps or misjudgments openly. Many fear that without the ability to compel evidence or assign responsibility, the evaluation will merely reiterate the findings of the 2020 Special Committee, which faced similar limitations.

Public demand for accountability remains high, and the government’s approach has done little to assuage these concerns. There is a palpable sense that Ireland’s evaluation process will lack the rigor and transparency required to restore public confidence. As an alternative, many have called for a statutory inquiry similar to that of the UK, which would allow for a more robust examination of the government’s decisions during the pandemic. The current narrative-driven, voluntary approach risks further undermining public trust, as it may fall short of addressing the deeper questions about how and why specific decisions were made, and who was responsible for them.

Ultimately, the Irish government’s choice reflects a desire to protect political and institutional interests, prioritizing a cohesive narrative over a rigorous, confrontational investigation. In this respect, Ireland’s response mirrors the EU’s stance, emphasizing solidarity and resilience while downplaying contentious issues around civil liberties and economic impact. This approach may foster a sense of unity among policymakers, but it risks alienating the public, particularly those who have lost loved ones or experienced severe financial or emotional hardship due to pandemic restrictions.

For those who endured the psychological strain, economic losses, and social isolation of lockdowns, the government’s narrative may seem dismissive, even revisionist. The insistence on avoiding a blame-oriented inquiry reflects a broader reluctance among EU member states to confront the negative aspects of their pandemic management. Many citizens feel that their experiences and sacrifices have been undervalued, and they demand accountability for the decisions that shaped their lives during this period.

In sum, Ireland’s Covid-19 evaluation process seems unlikely to bridge the gap between government and public perspectives. The lack of investigatory powers, coupled with the emphasis on a collaborative, narrative approach, may lead to a process that feels more like a formality than a genuine attempt to uncover truth and foster accountability. This approach, while politically cautious, may fall short in addressing the legitimate concerns of citizens who expect a transparent, comprehensive inquiry. For meaningful progress, Ireland will likely need to consider a statutory inquiry model, one that compels evidence, holds individuals accountable, and addresses the difficult questions that remain about Ireland’s Covid-19 response. Without such a rigorous evaluation, restoring public trust in the government’s crisis management will remain an uphill battle.