The UK government’s COVID-19 policy: assessing evidence-informed policy analysis in real time

  • Original Article
  • Published: 01 November 2020
  • Volume 16 , pages 90–116, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

uk government research papers

  • Paul Cairney 1  

28k Accesses

51 Citations

34 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In March 2020, COVID-19 prompted policy change in the UK at a speed and scale only seen during wartime. Throughout, UK government ministers emphasised their reliance on science and expertise to make the right choices at the right time, while their critics argued that ministers ignored key evidence and acted too little too late. Lessons from this debate should have a profound effect on future action, but only if based on a systematic analysis of policymaking as the problem emerged in real time. We should not confuse hindsight with foresight . To that end, I combine insights from policy analysis guides, policy theories, and critical policy analysis to frame this debate. The pandemic exposes the need to act despite high ambiguity and uncertainty and low government control, using trial-and-error strategies to adapt to new manifestations of the problem, and producing unequal consequences for social groups. Lessons will only have value if we incorporate these policymaking limitations and unequal socioeconomic effects and ask the right questions when holding the UK government to account.

Similar content being viewed by others

uk government research papers

Research Methods for Public Policy

uk government research papers

Health impacts of climate change and health and social inequalities in the UK

uk government research papers

Conceptualizing Public Policy

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction: how should we characterise the UK government response?

On the 23rd March 2020, the UK Government’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared: ‘From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction—you must stay at home’ (Johnson 2020a ). He announced measures to help limit the impact of COVID-19, including new regulations on behaviour, police powers to support public health, budgetary measures to support businesses and workers during their economic inactivity, the almost-complete closure of schools, and the major expansion of healthcare capacity via investment in technology, discharge to care homes, and a consolidation of national, private, and new health service capacity. Devolved governments, responsible for public health in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, introduced very similar measures as part of a coordinated approach (although this article focuses on UK government policy only; see Paun et al. 2020 on four-nation developments). Overall, COVID-19 prompted almost-unprecedented policy change, towards state intervention, at a speed and magnitude that seemed unimaginable before 2020.

Yet many have criticised the UK government’s response as slow and insufficient , suggesting that we explain policy ‘blunders’ (Gaskell et al. 2020 ), learn lessons from more successful governments (Powell-King and Hill 2020 ), and criticise UK ministers playing the ‘blame game’ with their advisors and delivery bodies (Boin et al. 2020 ; Oliver 2020 ). Initial criticisms include that UK ministers did not take COVID-19 seriously enough in relation to existing evidence (when its devastating effect was apparent in China in January and Italy from February); act as quickly as other countries to test for infection to limit its spread and/ or introduce swift measures to close schools, businesses, and major social events, and regulate social behaviour; or introduce strict enough measures to stop people coming into contact with each other at events and in public transport (Henley 2020 ). Some suggest that the UK government was responding to the ‘wrong pandemic’, assuming that COVID-19 could be treated like influenza (Pegg 2020 ). Subsequent criticisms highlight problems in securing personal protective equipment (PPE), testing capacity, and an effective test-trace-and-isolate system, contributing to a ‘story of systematic failure’ (Gaskell et al. 2020 , p. 7).

Some critics blame UK ministers for pursuing a ‘mitigation’ strategy, allegedly based on reducing the rate of infection and impact of COVID-19 until the population developed ‘herd immunity’ (Kermani 2020a ), rather than an elimination strategy to minimise its spread until a vaccine could be developed (Sridhar 2020 ; Cairney 2021 ). Some criticise the over-reliance on models which underestimated the R (rate of transmission) and ‘doubling time’ of cases and contributed to a 2-week delay of lockdown (Yates 2020 ; Taylor 2020 ). Many describe this approach and delay, compounded by insufficient PPE in hospitals and fatal errors in the treatment of care homes, as the biggest contributor to the UK’s high number of excess deaths (Campbell et al. 2020 ; Burn-Murdoch and Giles 2020 ; Scally et al. 2020 ; Mason 2020 ; Ball 2020 ; compare with Freedman 2020a , b and Snowdon 2020 ).

In contrast, scientific advisers to UK ministers have emphasised the need to gather evidence continuously to model the epidemic and identify key points at which to intervene, to reduce the size of the peak of population illness initially, then manage the spread of the virus over the longer term (e.g. Vallance on Sky News 2020 ). Throughout, they emphasised the need for individual behavioural change (hand washing and social distancing), supplemented by government action, in a liberal democracy in which direct imposition is unusual and unsustainable (Johnson 2020b ).

We can relate these contemporary debates on UK government capacity and performance to established policy research on the general limits to policymaking (summarised in Cairney 2016 , 2020a ; Cairney et al. 2019 ) which underpins the ‘governance thesis’ and academic study of British politics (Kerr and Kettell 2006 , p. 11; Jordan and Cairney 2013 , p. 234):

Policymakers must ignore almost all evidence.

Policymakers have a limited understanding, and even less control, of their policymaking environments.

Even though they lack full knowledge and control, governments must still make choices.

Their choices produce unequal impacts on different social groups.

These insights contradict the image of British politics associated with the ‘Westminster model’: the idea that policy is controlled by a small number of UK government ministers, with the power to solve major policy problems, remains popular in media and public debate but provides a wildly misleading way to assess policy outcomes (Cairney 2020c ).

To make better sense of current developments, we need to (a) understand how UK government policymakers address these limitations in practice, and (b) widen the scope of debate to consider the impact of policy on inequalities. A policy theory-informed and real-time account helps us avoid after the fact wisdom and bad-faith trials by social media. UK government action has been deficient in important ways, but we need careful and systematic analysis to help us separate (a) well-informed criticism to foster policy learning and hold ministers to account, from (a) a naïve and partisan rush to judgement that undermines learning and lets ministers off the hook.

To that end, I combine insights from policy analysis guides, policy theories, and critical policy analysis to analyse the UK government’s initial COVID-19 policy ( the first half of 2020 ). I use the lens of 5-step policy analysis models to identify what analysts and policymakers need to do, the limits to their ability to do it, and the distributional consequences of their choices. I focus on sources in the public record, including oral evidence to the House of Commons Health and Social Care committee, and the minutes and meeting papers of the UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), transcripts of TV press conferences and radio interviews, and reports by professional bodies and think tanks. To address an overload of information, I summarise the argument here and link to a full account of these sources in online annexes (see footnote Footnote 1 ).

Three ways to think about evidence-informed policy advice

Policy analysis guidebooks identify what analysts and policymakers need to do (their functional requirements ). Policy theories gauge their ability to do it (their actual capacity ). Critical policy analysis reveals the contested nature of advisor-informed policy, in which there is unequal access to influence and policy has an unequal impact. Combined, these approaches help to assess how the UK government has: used evidence selectively, modified its approach, limited the scope of policy-relevant advice, and proposed solutions with unequal consequences on the UK population.

Policy analysis texts recommend pragmatic ways to ‘do’ analysis, based on the assumption that one organisation conducts all steps on behalf of a client:

Define a policy problem identified by your client.

Gather evidence efficiently to identify technically and politically feasible solutions.

Use value-based criteria and political goals to compare solutions.

Predict the outcome of each solution.

Make a concise recommendation to your client (Bardach and Patashnik 2020 ; Dunn 2017 ; Meltzer and Schwartz 2019 ; Mintrom 2012 ; Weimer and Vining 2017 ).

Modern advice reflects a new story about policy analysis: it once resembled a club with elite analysts inside government giving technical advice about policy, but now there are many analysts inside and outside of government, competing to define problems and assign value to their evidence and solutions (Radin 2019 ; Brans et al. 2017 ; Enserink et al. 2013 ). This story should go further to explain two key dynamics.

First, policymakers must find ways to deal with their limited knowledge and control . They use two cognitive shortcuts: ‘rational’ (using well-established rules to identify high quality sources of information) and ‘irrational’ (using gut instinct, emotion, and beliefs) (Cairney and Kwiatkowski 2017 ). They define a problem, seek information that is available, understandable, and actionable, and identify credible sources of advice. Their choice of experts relates strongly to how they define the problem. These dynamics take place in a policymaking environment in which no single ‘centre’ has the power to turn advice into outcomes (Cairney et al. 2019 ). There are many policymakers and influencers spread across a political system, and policy is made or delivered in many venues, with their own rules and networks, over which senior elected policymakers have limited knowledge and influence. Factors such as social and economic conditions and events are also largely out of their control.

Second, policymakers must still act despite their limited knowledge and control, and each choice has an unequal impact on populations . All policy analysis steps are subject to contestation, in which actors compete to determine: how to define problems in a way that assigns blame to some and support to others (Bacchi 2009 ); whose evidence counts (Smith 2012 ; Doucet 2019 ); who should interpret and prioritise political values, (Stone 2012 ), and if new solutions should challenge a status quo that harms marginalised populations (Michener 2019 ; Schneider and Ingram 1997 ).

Table 1 identifies the policy analysis steps associated with ‘how to’ guides, then uses policy process and critical approaches to widen discussion. This approach provides different standards to assess the substance and direction of government policy . It highlights the need to consider how (1) the expert analysis of policy problems relates to (2) the cognitive and environmental limits to policy analysis and action, and (3) whose knowledge counts as policy relevant, and whose interests determine the final outcome.

Multiple perspectives on UK government COVID-19 policy

These perspectives are crucial to the analysis of UK government COVID-19 policy. First, they help reinterpret UK ministerial rhetoric on being ‘guided by the science’ (Cairney and Wellstead 2020 ). This rhetoric conjures the idea of ‘rational’ policy analysis within a single centre of government, projecting authority and control and depoliticising choices about which experts are relevant and how to save some people and let others die. Second, they highlight conflicting drivers of policy analysis from policy process research and critical perspectives. The former highlights the value of pragmatic policy analysis. The latter suggests that pragmatism reinforces the status quo and social inequalities (Cairney 2020b ). In that context, the following sections use the three perspectives on 5-step policy analysis structure (Table 1 ) to interpret COVID-19 policy.

Step 1: Define the problem, what is possible, and who is important

COVID-19 as a physical problem is not the same as a policy problem (Cairney 2021 ). To define the former is to identify the physical impact on individuals and populations of a virus and disease (WHO 2020 ). To define the latter, actors relate the physical problem to what they think a government can, and should, do about it.

Policy analysis: define the problem

Policy analysis advice emphasises the need to combine rhetoric and data to frame a problem’s severity, urgency, and cause, and the role of government in solving it (Cairney 2020b ). This combination is reflected in descriptions in March by scientific advisors interviewed by TV and print media (e.g. BBC Newsnight 2020 ), and in SAGE minutes and meeting papers and oral evidence to the Health and Social Care committee (Cairney 2020d , e ). They describe the problem as follows: there will be an epidemic, then the problem will be endemic (perhaps like seasonal flu); in the absence of a vaccine, the only way to produce ‘herd immunity’ is for most people to be infected and recover; we need some way to shield the most vulnerable during its spread; the epidemic may only seem real to most people when people begin to die; and, the power of government to control spread is limited, and many actions could have unintended consequences. In that context, they relate possible solutions to reducing the initial peak of infection rather than eliminating the virus:

Contain the virus enough to make sure it spreads at the right speed, to make sure that healthcare capacity is not overwhelmed (based on a ‘reasonable worst case scenario’: 11% of people with symptoms requiring hospital treatment of at least 8 days, and 1–2% requiring invasive ventilation treatment and intensive care—SAGE meeting 11, 27.2.20 in Cairney 2020e , pp. 6–7).

Encourage people to change their behaviour, to look after themselves (e.g. by handwashing) and forsake their individual preferences for the sake of public health (e.g. by keeping a two metre minimum distance from people, and self-isolating if feeling symptoms).

Such accounts informed how the UK government defined the policy problem and timing of intervention. For example, the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team ( 2020 ) engaged in framing to (a) predict the spread of the virus and its impact on population illness and mortality, (b) warn against insufficient intervention, (c) identify different forms of intervention, and (d) rule some options out (including no action and elimination ):

Its ‘unmitigated epidemic scenario’ describes ‘the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour’, and predicts 510,000 deaths in the UK in 2020 ( 2020 , p. 7).

Its ‘mitigation strategy scenarios’ highlight the relative effects of partly-voluntary measures on mortality and demand for ‘critical care beds’ in hospitals:

voluntary ‘case isolation in the home’ (people with symptoms stay at home for 7 days)

‘voluntary home quarantine’ (all members of the household stay at home for 14 days if one member has symptoms)

government enforced ‘social distancing of those over 70’ or ‘social distancing of entire population’ ( while still going to work, school or University )

closure of most schools and universities.

It omits ‘stopping mass gatherings’ because ‘the contact-time at such events is relatively small’ (2020a, p. 8).

Assuming 70–75% compliance, it describes the combination of ‘case isolation, home quarantine and social distancing of those aged over 70’ as the most impactful, but predicts that ‘mitigation is unlikely to be a viable option without overwhelming healthcare systems’ (2020a, pp. 8–10). These measures would ‘reduce peak critical care demand by two-thirds and halve the number of deaths’ (to approximately 250,000).

Its ‘suppression strategy scenarios’ describe what it would take to reduce the rate of transmission of infection (R) from the estimated 2.0–2.6 to 1 or below. A combination of ‘case isolation’, ‘social distancing of the entire population’ (the measure with the largest impact), ‘household quarantine’ and ‘school and university closure’ would reduce critical care demand from its peak ‘approximately 3 weeks after the interventions are introduced’, and contribute to a range of 5600–48,000 deaths over two years ( 2020 , pp. 13–14).

It argues that ‘epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time’, and these measures may be required until an effective vaccine or treatment is found ( 2020 , p. 16).

Policy process research: define what is possible

Policy research prompts us to incorporate, in problem definition, a policymaker’s willingness and ability to understand and solve the problem. Put simply, policymakers (a) do not know exactly what is happening or what will be the impact of their actions, and (b) are unsure about how to regulate behaviour. For example, the amount of force necessary to change social behaviour radically would be too much for a government to consider in a liberal democracy. If so, the UK government’s definition of the policy problem will incorporate this implicit question: what can we do if (a) we can only influence how people will behave, and (b) we can only manage the spread of disease?

There is some debate about the extent to which science advisors had to fit their advice into a narrative acceptable to ministers, or if their concerns were downplayed by ministers (Kermani 2020b ; Snowdon 2020 ). Regardless, most accounts suggest that a shift from exhortation to direct regulation did not seem technically or politically feasible to ministers (Calvert et al. 2020 ) or many scientific advisors (Grey and MacAskill 2020 ; Freedman 2020a , b ). Ministers only accepted in mid-March the need to act more quickly and intensely. The COVID-19 Response Team (2020a, p. 16) describes conclusions ‘reached in the last few days’ based on the lockdown experience in Italy and information from the NHS on ‘the limits to hospital surge capacity’. Before the UK lockdown of March 23rd, there is no mention in SAGE minutes that it is likely (Cairney 2020e ).

Rather, early ministerial and scientific adviser messages related to two beliefs (Cairney 2021 ). First, we can influence social behaviour somewhat by communicating effectively . For example, SAGE describes motivating people by relating behavioural change to their lives, stressing ‘personal responsibility and responsibility to others’, emphasizing transparency, honesty, clarity, and respect, to maintain high trust in government and promote a sense of community action (‘we are all in this together’) (Meeting paper 25.2.20 in Cairney 2020e , p. 5). Second, we can influence the distribution of the epidemic to avoid overwhelming health services and repeated waves of infection . SAGE minutes and meeting papers stress the need to (a) introduce isolation and social distancing measures to reduce the rate of transmission, but (b) avoid excessive suppressive measures on the first peak that would contribute to a second.

Critical policy analysis: identify who is important

Critical accounts encourage us to challenge the dominant frames which discriminate against the powerless (Bacchi 2009 ; Stone 2012 ). They relate to: who receives disproportionately positive/ negative and high/low attention, and the distributional consequences, such as when rhetoric about coronavirus being a ‘great leveller’ reduced attention to inequalities (Aiken 2020 ).

This approach connects to studies of health equity which treat health as a human right and oppose the unfair distribution of health inequalities (Helsinki Statement on Health in All Policies 2013 ). The WHO ( 2020 ) defines the ‘social determinants of health’ as ‘the unfair and avoidable differences in health status … shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources [and] the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age’. Whitehead and Dahlgren ( 2006 , p. 4) argue that ‘all systematic differences in health between different socioeconomic groups within a country’ are unfair and avoidable, relating to environments rather than individual choices. This approach challenges a tendency to relate health inequalities to ‘lifestyles’. The biggest impacts on population health come from (a) environments outside of an individual’s control (e.g. threats from others, such as pollution or violence), (b) education and employment, and (c) economic inequality, influencing access to warm and safe housing, high quality water and nutrition, transport, and safe and healthy environments (Solar and Urwin 2010 , p. 6; Bhala et al. 2020 ). In that context, COVID-19 highlights stark examples of inequalities in relation to:

Income and wealth

Some people can stockpile food and medicine, own homes to self-isolate and work, and access places to exercise. Many have insufficient access to food and medical supplies, few places to go outside, and juggle caring and work responsibilities at home, or risk travelling to work to maintain low paid jobs.

The lockdown and school closures exacerbate inequalities, in which women and girls are relatively vulnerable to domestic abuse (Home Affairs Select Committee 2020 ; Moreira 2020 ), and caring responsibilities are skewed towards women (Close the Gap 2020 ). Access to abortion services is more difficult (McDonald 2020 ). Women in sex work are vulnerable to illness and assault (BBC News 2020b ).

Race and ethnicity

Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (‘BAME’) populations are more vulnerable to COVID-19-related illness and death (Public Health England 2020 ), particularly among NHS staff (Taiwo Owatemi MP 14.5.20: q99 in Cairney 2020h ).

Older people are more vulnerable to COVID-19-related death, more affected by limited access to hospital care, and people living with dementia in care homes are isolated (Office for National Statistics 2020a ).

Tidball et al. ( 2020 ) describe the unusually high vulnerability to COVID-19 illness and death among people with disabilities and a reduction of social services.

Mental health

‘Mental ill health is a major cause and indicator of health inequality’ (Cairney and St Denny 2020 , p. 156), since social determinants contribute to inequalities of mental illness, and ‘people with mental illness die on average fifteen to twenty years earlier than those without’ (Chief Medical Officer 2014 , pp. 12, 217). ‘Social distancing’ can exacerbate mental health problems while access to services is diminished (Cairney 2020i ).

These inequalities intersect with each other, such as when:

‘BAME’ populations are more likely to be in housing not conducive to self-isolation, use public transport, work outside the home, and perform key worker jobs without sufficient protection (Keval 2020 ) (although please note the many different experiences summed up badly by the catch-all term ‘BAME’).

Men account for 2/3 of COVID-19 deaths (Office for National Statistics 2020b ). Of the 17 occupations with higher death rates in men, 11 have high ‘proportions of workers from Black and Asian ethnic backgrounds’ ( 2020b ).

Women are more likely to combine work and caring responsibilities, fulfil many key worker roles that make people more vulnerable to infection (such as supermarket and cleaning work, nursing and social care) and less able to find suitable PPE, while ‘financial dependence and poverty’ exacerbate their vulnerability to domestic violence (Close the Gap 2020 ).

The economic crisis exacerbates poverty which contributes to housing precarity and long-term problems with mental and physical health (Banks et al. 2020 ). Migrant workers often have ‘no recourse to public funds’ and face low wages, unsafe working conditions, and low ability to isolate safely (Clark et al. 2020 ). Disabled ‘BAME’ women are relatively unable to secure support (Women’s Budget Group 2020 ).

So, what exactly is the policy problem?

These three perspectives help us develop a detailed picture of the UK Government’s problem definition by mid-March 2020:

We are responding to an epidemic that cannot be eradicated.

We need to use a suppression strategy to reduce infection enough to avoid overwhelming health service capacity, and shield the most vulnerable people, to minimize deaths during at least one peak of infection.

We need to maintain suppression for a duration that is difficult to predict, subject to compliance levels that are difficult to monitor.

We need to avoid panicking the public in the lead up to suppression, and maintain wide public trust in the government.

We need to avoid (a) excessive and (b) insufficient suppression measures, which could contribute to a second wave of the epidemic (Vallance 2020 ).

We need to transition from suppression measures without allowing a major rise in R (the ‘exit strategy’), to ‘keep the economy growing’ (Johnson 2020b ), find safe ways for people to return to work and education, and reinstate NHS capacity. This strategy involves social distancing and (voluntary) track-and-trace measures to isolate people.

Any action or inaction has a profoundly unequal impact on social groups.

It is almost impossible to sum up the problem concisely and comprehensively, and its ambiguity undermines a single coherent response.

Step 2: Identify feasible solutions and their impact on existing policy and marginalized populations

Policy ‘solutions’ are better described as ‘tools’ or ‘instruments’ because (a) they do not solve a problem, and (b) governments combine many instruments (Cairney 2020a , pp. 20–22; Hood and Margetts 2007). Analysing their use help us provide a narrative of: economic models , including choices on public expenditure, tax, economic incentives, and the balance between the state and market; models of public service provision ; and ways to influence individual and social behaviour , including formal regulations and legal sanctions versus spending, public education, exhortation, voluntary agreements, and behavioural public policies (John 2011). They help us gauge commitment to policy change , from a minimalist focus on exhortation, to a maximalist focus on the redistribution of resources, provision of state services, and direct regulation of behaviour. In that context, we can identify two phases of intervention, from:

exhortation to modify behaviour, coupled with the desire to maintain existing ways of social and economic life, to

direct regulation and imposition, coupled with an unprecedented collection of measures to address the social and economic consequences.

Policy analysis: identify technically and politically feasible solutions

Policy analysis advice emphasises the need to identify only the solutions that your audience or client might consider (Cairney 2020b ). There is a gap between technical and political feasibility: popular solutions may not work as intended if implemented, and technically feasible solutions often receive the least support (Lowi 1964).

This insight helps explain the initial UK approach, based on the putative benefits of exhortation and the gradual introduction of more ambitious measures. Initially, it focused on ensuring that the greatest action took place at the right time in relation to the peak of infection. It began with exhortation, emphasising effective handwashing, to stay a safe distance from other people, and to stay at home if experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. On the 13th March, the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir Patrick Vallance, described voluntary self-isolation measures as ‘a big change … with the biggest impact at the moment’, then signalled the future need for whole household isolation, and emphasised that more stringent measures (such as to protect older and more vulnerable people) would ‘go on for weeks’ to coincide with the peak of infection. Forthcoming measures such as schools closures would have to last for months to be effective, and halting mass gatherings would have a relatively small impact (and unintended consequences) in the absence of a major suppression strategy (BBC News 2020a ; Vallance 2020 ). On the 16th March, the Prime Minister announced the need for: (1) all members of the household to stay at home for 14 days if one member has symptoms, (2) ‘people to start working from home where they possibly can’, and ‘avoid pubs, clubs, theatres and other such social venues’, (3) ‘those with the most serious health conditions’ to be ‘largely shielded from social contact for around 12 weeks’, and (4) the removal of emergency service support for large social gatherings (Johnson 2020b ). Further, SAGE ruled out many solutions as low impact, such as the routine screening of people flying into the UK (SAGE meetings 1–4, 22.1.20–4.2.20 in Cairney 2020e , pp. 1–2).

The Prime Minister’s speech on the 23rd March signals a major shift in policy. Johnson ( 2020a ) combines:

A statement on allowable behaviour ‘People will only be allowed to leave their home for the following very limited purposes: shopping for basic necessities, as infrequently as possible; one form of exercise a day—for example a run, walk, or cycle—alone or with members of your household; any medical need, to provide care or to help a vulnerable person; and travelling to and from work, but only where this is absolutely necessary and cannot be done from home’.

A signal of enforcement ‘If you don’t follow the rules the police will have the powers to enforce them’.

The UK government related such action to the general public good and vulnerable people, before stressing the impact of COVID-19 on NHS capacity and staffing: ‘Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives’ (Hope and Dixon 2020 ).

It introduced an unprecedented amount of measures to support radical policy change. Table 2 summarises initial measures, focusing on UK Government public health action for England (devolved governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are responsible for most aspects of public health—Paun et al. 2020 ) and economic policy for the UK.

The most radical temporary policy change relates to legislation—the Coronavirus Act 2020 (25.3.20) and additional statutory instruments—to regulate behaviour. Every entry in the following list would normally qualify as a major policy change in its own right, to:

Regulate social and business behaviour

Oblige people to stay at home in the absence of a reasonable excuse or exceptions (to work if you cannot work at home, pick up essential food or medicine, access essential public services, and/ or exercise outdoors).

Prohibit almost all gatherings of more than two people.

Oblige the closure of businesses—including bars, cinemas, theatres, bingo and concert halls, fitness centres, and museums—and reserve the right to close childcare services (schools had closed on 20.3.20).

Enable police powers to enforce the measures through fines (or arrests) for non-compliance.

Boost public service recruitment by changing the rules to register many NHS and social work staff (Department of Health and Social Care 2020 ).

Reduce the safeguards on detaining someone with reference to their mental health or capacity.

Modify rules on medical negligence, discharge, the registration of deaths, the disposal of bodies, inquests, and who can provide vaccinations to patients.

Modify rules on judicial commission appointments, the retention of fingerprint and DNA data, online court proceedings, postpone the completion of community service, and provide more scope for early prison release.

Give the UK government powers to compel private companies to provide information on the food supply.

Postpone national and local elections.

Protect people from eviction, and businesses from lease forfeiture (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government 2020 ).

The most radical long-term change relates to public spending and borrowing. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR 2020a ) estimated spending at £123 billion, revised upwards to £132.6 ( 2020b ). It includes spending on public services, charities, and local authority schemes (£17.3bn), additional social security payments (£8bn), a ‘coronavirus job retention scheme’ in which the government pays 80% of the salary of ‘furloughed’ staff in the public and private sector (net £54bn) for 8 months, the equivalent scheme for the self-employed (£15bn), tax reliefs, grants, and loans to businesses (£33bn), and deferred Value Added Tax and self-assessed income tax (£3.1bn). These changes grew as the size of the economic problem grew, in relation to public pressure (for example, to extend free school meal provision over summer to respond to a skilful campaign by Marcus Rashford), and to address a longer-term problem than expected (HM Treasury and Sunak 2020 ).

These changes were supported by the ability to borrow over the long term at low interest rates. The UK ‘government gross debt was £1891.8 billion at the end of 2019, equivalent to 85.4% of gross domestic product’ (Office for National Statistics 2020c ) and it rose to 100% by June. Emmerson and Stockton ( 2020 ) describe the £123bn package as ‘unprecedented’ and borrowing as ‘the largest share of national income in peacetime’.

Policy process research: identify the impact of new instruments on the policy mix

It is difficult to define ‘COVID-19 policy’ because: each new instrument adds to a pile of measures and intersects with others; a commitment to policy change does not ensure its delivery; its implementation does not ensure its intended outcome; policy often made as it is delivered; and, there are always unintended consequences (Cairney 2020a ). Rapid policy change on paper lacks meaning without evidence of outcomes.

First, legislation on social regulation relates imperfectly to (a) outputs such as police capacity devoted to encouraging compliance and (b) outcomes such as infection rates. The amount of time that the UK government is willing and able to maintain its regulations is uncertain, and there is no reliable knowledge of compliance. For example, SAGE minutes and meeting papers describe:

Their inability to measure the impact (on R) of each measure, because their data is limited and lockdown measures were introduced at the same time (meeting 25, 14.4.20 in Cairney 2020d , p. 50).

Their inability to estimate the impact of relaxing each measure (meeting 31, 1.5.20 in Cairney 2020d , p. 57).

Uncertainty about the transition from national lockdown to location-specific measures (meeting 28 min/papers, 23.4.20 in Cairney 2020d , pp. 53–54).

Minimal knowledge on virus transmission in ‘forgotten institutional settings’ and behaviour among vulnerable ‘hard to reach groups’ (meeting 39 min/papers, 28.5.20 in Cairney 2020d , pp. 67–68).

Continuous uncertainty about issues such as ‘the general public wearing facemasks as a preventative measure’ (4.2.20: 3; 14.4.20: 2; 21.4.20 in Cairney 2020d , pp. 49–52; compare with Greenhalgh et al. 2020 ). This uncertainty informed weak UK government advice on their public use (Cabinet Office 2020 ).

Second, while the economic package is large, its impact is unclear. The OBR’s ( 2020b ) revised estimate highlights uncertainty about who would need help. The ‘job retention scheme’ cost a lot less than expected, ‘reflecting the apparent concentration of furloughing among part time and lower paid jobs’, and was a stopgap without a clear ‘exit strategy’ (Portes and Wilson 2020 ). There are similar examples of action without known consequences in other sectors (e.g. Home Office 2020a , b action on domestic violence or modern slavery).

Third, the limitations to, and unintended consequences of, policy have contributed to many deaths in health and social care. The inadequate stockpile and supply of PPE, for NHS and other staff, is a constant feature of oral evidence to the Health and Social Care committee (Cairney 2020j ), and worryingly high levels of hospital infection is a regular feature of SAGE meetings (Cairney 2020e ). Inadequate testing capacity is a routine concern in both venues, suggesting that more data would have informed more accurate modelling, and more diagnostic capacity outside of hospital settings would have aided early containment and contact tracing (Cairney 2020k , e ). The UK government responded by setting a target on COVID-19 testing of 100,000 tests per day by the end of April (Full Fact 2020 ).

In the meantime, the lack of testing and PPE combined with other policies to contribute to a crisis of deaths in care homes. A high priority for NHS England was to maximise hospital capacity in the run up to a peak of infection. It pursued an initial target of 15,000 discharges from hospital beds, primarily to care homes, without routine testing or quarantine measures, and redeployed medical and nursing care from care homes. The National Audit Office ( 2020 ) reports 25,000 discharges, with testing limited to people with symptoms (17 March to 15 April), and a 30,000 testing cap in care homes at the end of April (Daly 2000 ). The Office for National Statistics ( 2020a , d , e ) estimates (in different ways): at least one confirmed COVID-19 test in 56% of care homes in England; 17,478 COVID-19-related deaths (in a care home or hospital) of all care home residents in England (27% of relevant deaths recorded up to 12th June); and, 12,327 deaths in care homes in England, or a quarter of the 47,705 overall deaths recorded in England (up to 3rd July).

Fourth, the UK government oversees, but does not seek to control precisely, health ‘quangos’ such as NHS England and agencies such as Public Health England (Ham 2018 ; Boswell et al. 2019 ). This relationship is double-edged, undermining direct control of policy delivery but allowing some blame deflection (symbolised by Health Secretary’s proposed abolition of PHE in August – Dixon 2020 ).

Critical policy analysis: use inclusive ways to generate solutions

Policy requires a combination of evidence and values, to determine whose knowledge is valuable and who should benefit from policy. Yet, during crises such as pandemics, policymakers argue that they are primarily engaged in ‘evidence-based policymaking’, to assure the public that the government is in control (Cairney 2016 ; Weible et al. 2020 ). Phrases such as ‘following the science’ are misleading (Stevens 2020 ) and exclusionary . They symbolise a style of policymaking designed to be centralised (to project ministerial control) and insulated (to limit participation to a small number of experts), which undermines the wider ‘co-production’ of policy (Durose et al. 2017 ). Consequently, many changes to policy in practice are only visible when people raise concerns , including:

Reinforcing economic inequalities Alves and Sial ( 2020 ) note that the UK budget package reinforces economic inequalities. It supports businesses via direct support and wage schemes rather than households while maintaining ‘unequal distribution’ and failing to protect the most vulnerable.

Reinforcing inequalities relating to disability Disability Rights UK and Liberty ( 2020 ) criticise the loss of rights to care that are ostensibly guaranteed in the Care Act.

Reinforcing inequalities in relation to migration status The unequal impact of new and existing policies includes: NHS workers without UK citizenship paying for visas and to access health services (waived temporarily —Health and Social Care & Home Office 2020 ); and, ‘no recourse to public funds’ for people granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK (Home Office News Team 2020 ; Step-Up Migrant Women Coalition 2020 ).

The impact of public service discretion on racialised outcomes . The Runnymede Trust describes a vulnerability to underestimated grades by teachers (in the absence of exams in 2020) among ‘higher attaining working-class students—but also particular ethnic minority students and specifically black Caribbean boys, as well as Gypsy Roma and Irish Traveller students’ (House of Commons Education Committee 2020 ).

The alienation of target populations (Schneider and Ingram 1997 ). Issues include the spread of COVID-19 among prisons (House of Commons Library 2020 ), movement of asylum seekers to hotels (Goodwin 2020 ), and limited provision of controlled drugs and support to treat addictions (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs 2020 ).

Further, high attention by UK policymakers to race and health inequalities relates to protests led by the Black Lives Matter movement (BBC News 2020c ), not routine attention within public sector practices.

Steps 3 and 4: Identify your values, predict the outcome of feasible solutions, and confront their trade-offs

Steps 3 (identifying values) and 4 (predicting outcomes) are worth considering together because both contribute to the comparison of solutions. Step 3 introduces the need to make value-based choices to inform Step 4’s prediction and comparison of solutions.

Policy analysis: use values and political goals to predict and compare the outcome of each feasible solution

Prospective evaluation is primarily the political choice between normative criteria:

Effectiveness The size of a policy’s intended impact (Meltzer and Schwarz 2019 , p. 117).

Equity (fairness) The impact in terms of ‘vertical equity’ (e.g. the better off should pay more), ‘horizontal equity’ (e.g. couples should not pay more tax if unmarried), ‘intergenerational’ equity (e.g. don’t impose higher costs on future populations), or in relation to fair processes and outcomes ( 2019 , pp. 118–119).

Feasibility (administrative, technical) The likelihood of policy being adopted and implemented well ( 2019 , pp. 119–121).

Cost (or financial feasibility) Who would bear the cost, and their willingness and ability to pay ( 2019 , p. 122).

Efficiency To maximise the benefit while minimizing costs ( 2019 , pp. 122–123).

The protection of human rights, human dignity, or ‘human flourishing’ (Mintrom 2012 , pp. 52–57).

These values inform step 4, to ‘Assess the outcomes of the policy options in light of the criteria and weigh trade-offs between the advantages and disadvantages of the options’ (Meltzer and Schwarz 2019 , p. 21). Some methods—such as cost benefit analysis (CBA)—seem to dominate. CBA identifies the most efficient solutions by translating their predicted costs and benefits into a single measure, on the assumption that we can compare the experiences of individuals well, and that the winners from policy can compensate the losers (Weimer and Vining 2017 , pp. 352–355, 398–434).

Policy process research: identify how actors cooperate or compete to define and rank values, and anticipate the disproportionate effect of your solution

This process might be manageable if one policy analyst and client were involved. However, many analysts compete to interpret facts and predictions, find an audience, and give advice to different clients (Radin 2019 , p. 2; Brans et al. 2017 ). Values and goals are ambiguous and contested (Stone 2012 , p. 14). Examples include definitions of: equity , based on competing notions of merit and the balance between individual, communal, and state-based interventions ( 2012 , pp. 39–62), efficiency , based on who decides the main goal and if public spending is a social investment ( 2012 , pp. 63–84), need , according to measures of poverty or inequality ( 2012 , pp. 85–106), liberty , defined as freedom from state coercion versus freedom from the harm caused by others ( 2012 , pp. 107–128), and security, according to perceptions of threat versus experiences of harm, and how much risk to tolerate before state surveillance and intervention ( 2012 , pp. 129–153). Further, the connection between these abstract debates on values (step 3) and concrete predictions of outcomes (step 4) is not strong, because it is difficult to separate the consideration of one new instrument from the policy mix.

Critical policy analysis: co-produce the rules to produce and evaluate solutions, and identify the impact on marginalised groups

A common theme is to encourage forms of co-production, to produce the knowledge to inform debates on competing meanings and values (Bacchi 2009 ; Doucet 2019 ; Smith 2012 ). Public and stakeholder involvement fosters deliberation, the ‘ownership’ of policy, public support, and knowledge to anticipate the consequences of policy.

Steps 3 and 4 in practice: minimal deliberation, implicit choices

UK policy is marked by the absence of widespread deliberation about values and trade-offs. Initially, the most visible trade-off related to pre-lockdown visions of freedom and security in relation to the risk of harm, comparing (a) freedom from state coercion versus (b) freedom from the harm caused by others when spreading disease. In comparison with many countries, UK government ministers seemed reluctant to enforce state quarantine measures (Cairney and Wellstead 2020 ), and they were often supported by advisors (Vallance 2020 ) and SAGE papers that warned against (a) the loss of benefits caused by school closures, and (b) the impact of social isolation on mental health and poverty (SPI-B meeting paper 4.3.20b: 1–4 and meeting 14 10.3.20 in Cairney 2020e , p. 9).

Comparing the costs and benefits of lockdown

A lockdown, and support measures, produce unequal effects (Johnson 2020c , d ). Giving priority to the lives of COVID-19 patients contributes to the deaths of others, when people avoid hospital for other conditions, and when the lockdown exacerbates deaths and chronic health problems associated with ‘poverty, unemployment and mental health problems’. The lockdown highlights ‘distributional choices’ since the effect of gaps in education is starker in state than private schools, while loss in employment is more likely among the under-25s and lowest-earning workers ( 2020c ; d ). Further, the furlough scheme prompted more women than men to stop work to look after children ( 2020d ).

Layard et al. ( 2020 , p. 1) attempt to translate this impact of policy on COVID-19 deaths, other deaths, and ‘incomes, unemployment, mental health, public confidence and many other factors’ into a single metric: ‘the number of Wellbeing-Years resulting from each date of ending the lockdown’. They describe a ‘time to release the lockdown’ (while maintaining social distancing and isolating vulnerable people) when the ‘net benefits of doing so become positive’. This calculation is based on comparing positive and negative effects, when the lockdown release: ‘increases people’s incomes’, ‘reduces unemployment’, ‘improves mental health, suicide, domestic violence, addiction, and loneliness’, ‘maintains confidence in the government’, and ‘restores schooling’; but also ‘increases the final number of deaths’ from COVID-19 and the illnesses not treated by an overstretched NHS, and ‘increases road deaths, commuting, CO 2 emissions, and air pollution’ ( 2020 , p. 2). Based on their assumptions, a lockdown release on June 1st would have a net, and growing, benefit to the entire population.

Although providing only ‘rough valuations’, to prompt the UK government into performing a more sophisticated analysis ( 2020 , p. 8), this report also highlights three challenges to cost–benefit analysis under uncertainty. First, Layard et al. ( 2020 ) do not identify their values or relate them to the unequal distribution of positive and negative effects among the UK population. Second, they highlight a tendency for people to avoid: putting a price on a life, confronting the trade-offs regarding whose lives to save, and comparing the efficiency of different measures. Third, one key assumption underpinning Layard et al’s ( 2020 , p. 18) initial calculations proved to be wrong: the release of lockdown did not ‘maintain confidence in the government’. High confidence in policy related to the perceived threat of COVID-19 and a sense of social solidarity, which diminished during a confusing lockdown release with visible winners and losers, exacerbated by the non-resignation of Boris Johnson’s special adviser Dominic Cummings when found to be flouting the regulations he helped devise (Devine et al. 2020 ; Jackson et al. 2020 ; The Policy Institute 2020 ; Cairney and Wellstead 2020 ).

Step 5: Recommend policy, taking into account what is possible, and who should be involved

Policy analysis texts emphasise practical elements to recommendations: keep them simple and concise, tailor them to the beliefs of your audience, make a preliminary recommendation to inform an iterative process with clients (Meltzer and Schwartz 2019 , p. 212), and ‘recommend one policy’ (Weimer and Vining 2017 , p. 28). Policy process research suggests that you take into account the inability of governments to predict the outcomes of each instrument. Critical accounts emphasise the need to extend inclusive policymaking to the recommendations process, to anticipate the reaction of many different social groups to your proposals. However, the scope of COVID-19 policy is unusually wide, rendering useless the idea of a single recommendation. Governments necessarily use trial-and-error policymaking to adapt to changing circumstances.

Trial-and-error is necessary but problematic in the UK. Studies of ‘multi-centric’ policymaking recommend adapting to a lack of central government control (Cairney et al. 2019 ). They criticise governments who deal with their lack of control by trying to reassert it. Policymakers in the UK are too driven by the idea of order: maintaining hierarchies, and producing top-down strategies and performance indicators to monitor and control the public sector, resulting in demoralising policy failure (Geyer 2012 ). The alternative is to delegate decision-making, to rely less on targets, in favour of giving more local policymakers more freedom to learn from experience.

It is difficult to imagine the UK Government taking that advice, because Westminster systems encourage stories of accountability based on central government control (Cairney 2020c ). It pursues a different trial-and-error approach: centralising the adaptive process while projecting the sense that it is in control and that policy modification is part of a consistent approach. Meanwhile, its critics exacerbate the problem by focusing on the actions of a small number of people ostensibly in power, using the language of poor judgement, incompetence, or U-turns.

Discussion and conclusion: questions to aid future reflection

Clearly there should be a sustained and intense period of reflection on the UK government’s COVID-19 policies and policymaking. It will be crucial to informing new policies to anticipate rather than react to pandemics. It requires us to do the following. First, hold policymakers to account in a systematic way that does not mislead the public. Second, recognise that ‘policy learning’ is a political exercise (Dunlop 2017 ). Third, set realistic expectations, to recognise that policymakers have limited knowledge and control. Finally, note the trade-offs between attention to (a) the competence and motivations of individual policymakers, or (b) the unequal impact of policies on populations already marginalised by policy and society. With these requirements in mind:

Was the government’s overall definition of the problem appropriate?

Much analysis of its competence relates to its focus on intervening in late March to protect healthcare capacity during a peak of infection, rather than taking a quicker and more precautionary approach. This judgement relates partly to forecasting errors, but also its definition of the policy problem (Cairney 2021 ). Note that SAGE evidence and advice played an important role in UK ministerial deliberation and action. From their perspective, many elements of the response should only be judged while reflecting on its long-term consequences. This evaluation is of a different order to specific deficiencies in preparation (such as shortages in PPE), immediate action (such as to discharge people from hospitals to care homes without testing them for COVID-19), and implementation (such as an imperfect test-trace-and-isolate system).

Did the government select the right policy mix at the right time?

In March, the urgency of the epidemic helped change radically the political feasibility of new measures. The UK government initially relied on exhortation, based on voluntarism and an appeal to social responsibility (in a liberal democracy). Then, the ‘stay at home’ requirement had a major unequal impact, in relation to the income, employment, and wellbeing of different groups. The economic measures reinforced many income and wealth inequalities. Initial policy inaction had unequal consequences on social groups, including people with underlying health conditions, 'BAME' populations more susceptible to mortality at work or discrimination by public services, care home residents, disabled people unable to receive services, non-UK citizens obliged to pay more to live and work while less able to access public funds, and populations (such as prisoners and drug users) that receive minimal public sympathy.

Did the UK government make the right choices on the trade-offs between values, and what impacts could the government have reasonably predicted?

Initially, the most high profile value judgement related to (a) freedom from state coercion to reduce infection versus freedom from the harm of infection caused by others, followed by (b) choices on the equitable distribution of measures to mitigate the economic and wellbeing consequences of lockdown, interspersed with (c) debates on fairness in relation to who is most willing and able to follow social distancing rules. A tendency for the UK government to project centralised and ‘guided by the science’ policymaking has undermined public deliberation on these trade-offs between policies. The latter will be crucial to debates on the trade-offs associated with (national, regional, and local) lockdowns and measures to anticipate and address pandemics in the absence of lockdown.

Did the UK government combine good policy with good policymaking?

A problem like COVID-19 requires trial-and-error policymaking on a scale that seems incomparable to previous experiences. It requires further reflection on how to foster transparent and adaptive policymaking and widespread public ownership for unprecedented policy measures, in a political system characterised by (a) accountability focused incorrectly on strong central government control and (b) adversarial politics that is not conducive to consensus seeking and cooperation.

These additional perspectives and questions show that too-narrow questions—such as was the UK government ‘following the science’?—do not help us understand the longer-term development and wider consequences of UK COVID-19 policy.

Cairney 2020d – 2020l , found here .

Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. 2020. ACMD advice on COVID-19 emergency legislation to enable supply of controlled drugs, 7 April, . Accessed 15 May 2020.

Aiken, V. 2020. Why covid-19 is changing our perceptions of social class and risk, Discover Society , May 22, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Alves, C., and F. Sial. 2020. COVID-19: How the UK’s economic model contributes towards a mismanagement of the crisis, LSE British Politics and Policy , 30 March . Accessed 14 May 2020.

Bacchi, C. 2009. Analysing policy . NSW: Pearson.

Google Scholar  

Ball, P. 2020. Would an earlier lockdown have halved the death toll?, Prospect Magazine , 12 June, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Banks, J., H. Karjalainen, C. Propper, G. Stoye, and B. Zaranko. 2020. Economic downturn and wider NHS disruption likely to hit health hard—Especially health of most vulnerable, Institute for Fiscal Studies , 9 April, . Accessed 13 May 2020.

Bardach, E., and E. Patashnik. 2020. A practical guide for policy analysis , 6th ed. London: Sage.

BBC News. 2020a. Coronavirus: Government expert defends not closing UK schools, 13 March .

BBC News. 2020b. Coronavirus: Sex workers 'at greater risk of assault', 10 June, .

BBC News. 2020c. Black Lives Matter protests held across England, 20 June, . Accessed 12 July 2020.

BBC Newsnight. 2020. Coronavirus: Can herd immunity protect the population? 12 March, . Accessed 7 April 2020.

Bhala, N., G. Curry, A.R. Martineau, C. Agyemang, and R. Bhopal. 2020. Sharpening the global focus on ethnicity and race in the time of COVID-19. The Lancet 395 (10238): 1673–1676.

Article   Google Scholar  

Boin, A., M. Lodge, and M. Luesink. 2020. Learning from the COVID-19 crisis: An initial analysis of national responses. Policy Design and Practice . .

Boswell, J., P. Cairney, and E. St Denny. 2019. The politics of institutionalizing preventative health. Social Science and Medicine . .

Brans, M., I. Geva-May, and M. Howlett. 2017. The policy analysis movement. In Routledge handbook of comparative policy analysis , ed. M. Brans, I. Geva-May, and M. Howlett. London: Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Burn-Murdoch, J., and C. Giles. 2020. UK suffers second-highest death rate from coronavirus, Financial Times , 28 May . Accessed 29 May 2020.

Cabinet Office. 2020. Guidance. Staying safe outside your home, (updated) 24 June 2020 . Accessed 12 July 2020.

Cairney, P. 2016. The politics of evidence-based policymaking . London: Palgrave.

Cairney, P. 2020. Understanding public policy , 2nd ed. London: Red Globe.

Cairney, P. 2020b. The politics of policy analysis (London: Palgrave Pivot). Previous draft available at: .

Cairney, P. 2020c. The myth of ‘evidence based policymaking’ in a decentred state. Public Policy and Administration . .

Cairney, P. 2020d. COVID-19 policy in the UK: Oral evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee (5th March- 3rd June 2020), Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy , 13 June . Accessed 8 July 2020.

Cairney, P. 2020e. Table 2: Summary of SAGE minutes, January-June 2020, Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy , 8 July, . Accessed 8 July 2020.

Cairney, P. 2020f. Summary of NERVTAG minutes, January-March 2020, Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy , 3 June . Accessed 8 July 2020.

Cairney, P. 2020g. 3. Defining the policy problem, Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy , 13 June . Accessed 10 July 2020.

Cairney, P. 2020h. 8. Race, ethnicity, and the social determinants of health, Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy , 13 June . Accessed 10 July 2020.

Cairney, P. 2020i. 7. Lower profile changes to policy and practice, Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy , 13 June . Accessed 10 July 2020.

Cairney, P. 2020j. 2. The inadequate supply of personal protective equipment (PPE), Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy , 13 June . Accessed 10 July 2020.

Cairney, P. 2020k. 1. The need to ramp up testing (for many purposes), Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy , 13 June . Accessed 10 July 2020.

Cairney, P. 2020l. The UK Government’s COVID-19 policy: Assessing evidence-informed policy analysis in real time (using 25000 words), Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy , 14 July, . Accessed 14 July 2020.

Cairney, P. 2021. Evidence-informed COVID-19 policy: What problem was the UK Government trying to solve? In Living with pandemics , ed. J. Bryson, L. Andres, A. Ersoy, and L. Reardon. Basingstoke: Edward Elgar.

Cairney, P., T. Heikkila, and M. Wood. 2019. Making policy in a complex world . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Cairney, P., and R. Kwiatkowski. 2017. How to communicate effectively with policymakers. Palgrave Communications 3: 37.

Cairney, P., and E. St Denny. 2020. Why isn’t government policy more preventive? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cairney, P., and A. Wellstead. 2020. COVID-19: Effective policymaking depends on trust in experts, politicians, and the public. Policy Design and Practice .

Calvert, J., G. Arbuthnott, and J. Leake. 2020. Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster, Sunday Times , 18 April . Accessed 7 May 2020.

Campbell, D., F. Perraudin, N. Davis, and M. Weaver. 2020. Calls for inquiry as UK reports highest Covid-19 death toll in Europe, The Guardian , 5 May 2020 .

Chief Medical Officer. 2014. Annual report of the Chief Medical Officer 2013 . London: Department of Health.

Clark, I., H. Fearnall-Williams, J. Hunter, and R. Pickford. 2020. Working and living practices may explain Leicester’s coronavirus spike, The Conversation , 2 July, . Accessed 11 July 2020.

Close the Gap. 2020. Coronavirus brings new focus to women’s continued workplace inequality, Close the Gap blog, 30 March . Accessed 13 May 2020.

Daly, M. 2020. COVID-19 and care homes in England: What happened and why? Social Policy & Administration, Early View .

Department of Health and Social Care. 2020. What the coronavirus bill will do’, 26 March, . Accessed 15 May 2020.

Devine, D., J. Gaskell, W. Jennings, and G. Stoker. 2020. Trust and behavioural responses to COVID-19, trustgov , 2 June, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Disability Rights UK and Liberty. 2020. DR UK and Liberty statement on Care Act easements, 7 May, . Accessed 15 May 2020.

Dixon, J. 2020. Public Health England: The implications of this restructure go well beyond Covid-19, Prospect Magazine , 25 August, . Accessed 15 Oct 2020.

Doucet, F. 2019. Centering the margins: (Re)defining useful research evidence through critical perspectives . New York: William T. Grant Foundation.

Dunlop, C. 2017. The irony of epistemic learning. Policy and Society 36 (2): 215–232. .

Dunn, W. 2017. Public policy analysis , 6th ed. New York: Routledge.

Durose, C., C. Needham, C. Mangan, and J. Rees. 2017. Generating “good enough” evidence for co-production. Evidence & Policy 13 (1): 135–151.

Emmerson, C., and I. Stockton. 2020. How does the size of the UK’s fiscal response to coronavirus compare with other countries’? Institute for Fiscal Studies , 14 May . Accessed 14 May 2020.

Enserink, B., J. Koppenjan, and I. Mayer. 2013. A policy sciences view on policy analysis. In (2013) Public policy analysis: New developments , ed. W. Thissen and W. Walker, 11–40. London: Springer.

Freedman, L. 2020a. The real reason the UK government pursued “herd immunity”—And why it was abandoned, The Spectator , 1 April . Accessed 7 May 2020.

Freedman, L. 2020b. Where the science went wrong, New Statesman , 7 June . Accessed 8 July 2020.

Full Fact. 2020. Has the government really hit 100,000 tests a day, and what happens next?, Full Fact , 1 May, . Accessed 15 May 2020.

Gaskell, J., G. Stoker, W. Jennings, and D. Devine. 2020. Covid-19 and the blunders of our governments. Political Quarterly . .

Geyer, R. 2012. Can complexity move uk policy beyond “Evidence-based policy making” and the “audit culture”? Political Studies 60 (1): 20–43.

Goodwin, K. 2020. Asylum seekers’ lives ‘put at risk’ by decision to move them to hotels, The Ferret , 22 April, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Greenhalgh, T., M. Schmid, T. Czypionka, D. Bassler, and L. Gruer. 2020. Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis. British Medical Journal 369: 1–4.

Grey, S., and A. MacAskill. 2020. Special Report: Johnson listened to his scientists about coronavirus – but they were slow to sound the alarm, Reuters , 7 April . Accessed 7 May 2020.

Ham, C. 2018. The story of NHS England: The world’s biggest quango, 24 May, . Accessed 15 Oct 2020.

Helsinki statement on health in all policies. 2013. Health Promotion International 29(1): i17–i18

Henley, J. 2020. ‘Complacent’ UK draws global criticism for Covid-19 response, The Guardian , 6 May, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

HM Treasury, and R. Sunak. 2020. A Plan for Jobs speech, 8 July . Accessed 11 July 2020.

Home Affairs Select Committee. 2020. Home Office preparedness for Covid-19 (Coronavirus): Domestic abuse and risks of harm within the home , 27 April . Accessed 13 May 2020.

Home Office. 2020a. Coronavirus (COVID-19): Support for victims of domestic abuse, 14 April . Accessed 15 May 2020.

Home Office. 2020b. Guidance. Coronavirus (COVID-19): Support for victims of modern slavery, 6 April . Accessed 12 July 2020.

Home Office News Team. 2020. No recourse to public funds (NRPF), 5 May, . Accessed 28 May 2020.

Hope, C., and H. Dixon. 2020. The story behind 'Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives'—The slogan that was 'too successful', The Telegraph , 1 May . Accessed 6 May 2020.

House of Commons Education Committee. 2020. Getting the grades they’ve earned: Covid-19: The cancellation of exams and ‘calculated’ grades. 2 Is the system fair?, 11 July, . Accessed 12 July 2020.

House of Commons Library. 2020. Coronavirus: Prisons (England and Wales), 8 April, . Accessed 15 May 2020.

Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team. 2020. Report 9 – Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand, 16 March . Accessed 7 April 2020.

Jackson, J., B. Bradford, J. Yesberg, Z. Hobson, A. Kyprianides, K. Pósch, and R. Solymosi. 2020. Public compliance and COVID-19, LSE British Politics and Policy , 5 June, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Johnson, B. 2020a. PM address to the nation on coronavirus, 23 March . Accessed 7 April 2020.

Johnson, B. 2020b. PM statement on coronavirus, 16 March

Johnson, P. 2020c. Huge ethical choices face those tasked with bringing the UK out of lockdown, Institute for Fiscal Studies , 13 April, . Accessed 25 May 2020.

Johnson, P. 2020d. We may be in this together, but that doesn’t mean we are in this equally, Institute for Fiscal Studies , 27 April, . Accessed 25 May 2020.

Jordan, G., and P. Cairney. 2013. What is the ‘dominant model’ of British policymaking? British Politics 8 (3): 233–259.

Kermani, S. 2020a Coronavirus: Whitty and Vallance faced 'herd immunity' backlash, emails show, BBC News , 23 September . Accessed 15 Oct 2020.

Kermani, S. 2020a. Chief scientist 'told off' for lockdown plea, BBC News , 14 September . Accessed 15 Oct 2020.

Kerr, P., and S. Kettell. 2006. In defence of British politics: The past, present and future of the discipline. British Politics 1 (1): 3–25.

Keval, H. 2020. Race, class and covid-19—Not an equal opportunities contagion, Discover Society, 16 April . Accessed 13 May 2020.

Layard, R., A. Clark, J. De Neve, C. Krekel, D. Fancourt, N. Hey, and O’Donnell. 2020. When to release the lockdown, Centre for Economic Performance Occasional Paper , 49. London: LSE. .

Mason, R. 2020. UK failure to lock down earlier cost many lives, top scientist says, The Guardian , 7 June, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

McDonald, H. (2020) Northern Ireland confirms abortions can now be carried out, The Guardian , 9 April. . Accessed 13 May 2020.

Meltzer, R., and A. Schwartz. 2019. Policy analysis as problem solving . London: Routledge.

Michener, J. 2019. Policy feedback in a racialized polity. Policy Studies Journal 47 (2): 423–450.

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. 2020. Government support available for landlords and renters reflecting the current coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, 26 March, . Accessed 15 May 2020.

Mintrom, M. 2012. Contemporary policy analysis . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moreira, M.L. 2020. The invisible pandemic, LSE Gendering Covid-19, 11 June . Accessed 13 July 2020.

National Audit Office. 2020. Readying the NHS and adult social care in England for COVID-19 , HC 367 10 June. London: House of Commons. .

Office for Budget Responsibility. 2020a. Coronavirus analysis, 14 May (including the Coronavirus policy monitoring database – 14 May 2020, ). Accessed 14 May 2020.

Office for Budget Responsibility. 2020b. Coronavirus analysis, 19 June (including the Coronavirus policy monitoring database – 14 May 2020, . Accessed 11 July 2020.

Office for National Statistics. 2020a. Impact of coronavirus in care homes in England, Office for National Statistics , 3 July 2020 . Accessed 11 July 2020.

Office for National Statistics. 2020b. Coronavirus (COVID-19) related deaths by occupation, England and Wales, Office for National Statistics , 26 June 2020, . Accessed 10 July 2020.

Office for National Statistics. 2020c. UK government debt and deficit: December 2019, Office for National Statistics , 17 April . Accessed 14 May 2020.

Office for National Statistics. 2020d. Deaths involving COVID-19 in the care sector, England and Wales, Office for National Statistics , 3 July, (Excel sheet on England. ). Accessed 12 July 2020.

Office for National Statistics. 2020e. Comparison of weekly death occurrences in England and Wales, Office for National Statistics , 7 July . Accessed 12 July 2020.

Oliver, D. 2020. Let’s be open and honest about covid-19 deaths in care homes. British Medical Journal 369: m2334. .

Paun, A., J. Sargeant, and A. Nice. 2020. A four-nation exit strategy, Institute for Government , 6 May, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Pegg, D. 2020. Covid-19: Did the UK government prepare for the wrong kind of pandemic? The Guardian , 21 May, . Accessed 15 Oct 2020.

Powell, M., and S. King-Hill. 2020. Intra-crisis learning and prospective policy transfer in the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy . .

Portes, J., and A. Wilson. 2020. We need an exit strategy for jobs—and it should look like this, Prospect Magazine , 4 May, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Public Health England. 2020. Beyond the data: Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on BAME groups . London: PHE. .

Radin, B. 2019. Policy analysis in the twenty-first century . London: Routledge.

Scally, G., B. Jacobson, and K. Abbasi. 2020. The UK’s public health response to covid-19. British Medical Journal . .

Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. 1997. Policy design for democracy . Kansas: University of Kansas Press.

Sky News. 2020. UK needs to get COVID-19 for 'herd immunity', Sky News , 13 March . Accessed 7 April 2020.

Smith, L.T. 2012. Decolonizing methodologies , 2nd ed. London: Zed Books.

Snowdon, C. 2020. The lockdown’s founding myth. The Critic , 28th May, . Accessed 28 May 2020.

Solar, O., and A. Urwin. 2010. A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health . Geneva: WHO.

Step-Up Migrant Women Coalition. 2020. Joint submission to the domestic abuse bill committee, 11 June, . Accessed 12 July 2020.

Stevens, A. 2020. Governments cannot just ‘follow the science’ on COVID-19. Nature Human Behaviour . .

Stone, D. 2012. Policy paradox , 3rd ed. London: Norton.

Sridhar, D. 2020. Britain must change course—and resume Covid-19 testing to protect frontline NHS staff, The Guardian , 16 March . Accessed 7 April 2020.

Taylor, P. 2020. Susceptible, infectious, recovered. London Review of Books , 42, 9, 7 May . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Tidball, M., A. Lawson, L. Lee, J. Herring, B. Sloan, K. Mallick, D. Holloway, and S. Ryan. 2020. An affront to dignity, inclusion and equality, 2 July, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

The Policy Institute. 2020. Coronavirus: Growing divisions over the UK government’s response, 26 May, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Weimer, D., and A. Vining. 2017. Policy analysis , 6th ed. London: Routledge.

Vallance, P. 2020. How ‘herd immunity’ can help fight coronavirus. The Spectator , 13 March . Accessed 7 April 2020.

Weible, C., D. Nohrstedt, P. Cairney, D. Carter, D. Crow, A. Durnová, T. Heikkila, K. Ingold, A. McConnell, and D. Stone. 2020. COVID-19 and the policy sciences. Policy Sciences . .

Whitehead, M., and G. Dahlgren. 2006. Concepts and principles for tackling social inequities in health. World Health Organization: Studies on social and economic determinants of population health .

WHO (World Health Organization). 2020. Coronavirus. . Accessed 6 April 2020.

Women’s Budget Group. 2020. New data reveals “crisis of support” for BAME women. Women’s Budget Group , 8 June, . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Yates, K. 2020. The UK Was Never Four Weeks Behind Italy. Huffington Post , 10 June Accessed 9 July 2020.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of History, Heritage and Politics, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK

Paul Cairney

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Cairney .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cairney, P. The UK government’s COVID-19 policy: assessing evidence-informed policy analysis in real time. Br Polit 16 , 90–116 (2021).

Download citation

Published : 01 November 2020

Issue Date : March 2021


Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • UK government
  • COVID-19 policy
  • Policy analysis
  • Policy theory
  • Critical policy analysis
  • Health inequalities
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research


Library Services


  • Guides and databases
  • Library skills
  • Government/Official publication
  • A-Z of Harvard references
  • Citing authors with Harvard
  • Page numbers and punctuation
  • References with missing details
  • Secondary referencing
  • Example reference list
  • Journal article
  • Magazine article
  • Newspaper article
  • Online video
  • Radio and internet radio
  • Television advertisement
  • Television programme
  • Ancient text
  • Bibliography
  • Book (printed, one author or editor)
  • Book (printed, multiple authors or editors)
  • Book (printed, with no author)
  • Chapter in a book (print)
  • Collected works
  • Dictionaries and Encyclopedia entries
  • Multivolume work
  • Religious text
  • Thesis or dissertation
  • Translated work
  • Census data
  • Financial report
  • Mathematical equation
  • Scientific dataset
  • Book illustration, Figure or Diagram
  • Inscription on a building
  • Installation
  • Painting or Drawing
  • Interview (on the internet)
  • Interview (newspaper)
  • Interview (radio or television)
  • Interview (as part of research)
  • Act of the UK parliament (statute)
  • Bill (House of Commons/Lords)
  • Birth/Death/Marriage certificate
  • British standards
  • Command paper
  • European Union publication
  • House of Commons/Lords paper
  • Legislation from UK devolved assemblies
  • Statutory instrument
  • Military record
  • Film/Television script
  • Musical score
  • Play (live performance)
  • Play script
  • Song lyrics
  • Conference paper
  • Conference proceedings
  • Discussion paper
  • Minutes of meeting
  • Personal communication
  • PowerPoint presentation
  • Published report
  • Student's own work
  • Tutor materials for academic course
  • Unpublished report
  • Working paper
  • Referencing glossary

Government/Official publications

To be made up of:

  • Name of government department or committee.
  • Year of publication (in round brackets).
  • Title (in italics).
  • Place of publication: publisher.
  • Series or paper number (in brackets) - if applicable.

In-text citation:

(Great Britain. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011).  

Reference list:

Great Britain. Department of Education Science (1991). History in the national curriculum (England) . London: HMSO. (DES circular no. 4/91)

Online Government/Official publication

Follow the same format as for a print publication, and add: 

  • Available at: URL.
  • (Accessed: date).

Great Britain. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2011). Bigger, better business: Helping small firms start, grow and prosper . Available at: (Accessed: 21 June 2013).  

Quick links

  • Harvard references A-Z
  • << Previous: European Union publication
  • Next: Hansard >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 28, 2024 12:08 PM
  • URL:

Manchester Metropolitan University homepage

Covid–19 Library update

Important changes to our services. find out more, q. how do i reference uk government and parliamentary sources.

  • 5 Access to the Library
  • 3 Accessibility
  • 319 Databases - more information
  • 18 How to find?
  • 10 Journals, newspapers and magazines.
  • 1 Laptop loans
  • 1 Library account
  • 26 Library databases
  • 11 Library study spaces
  • 5 LinkedIn Learning course videos
  • 29 Logging in
  • 28 MMU Harvard
  • 6 Need some help?
  • 1 Photocopying
  • 1 Reading lists
  • 39 Referencing
  • 1 Research data management
  • 1 Research Gate
  • 2 Reservations
  • 7 RSC Referencing
  • 4 Software IT
  • 4 WGSN database

Answered By: Referencing Enquiries Team Last Updated: Dec 16, 2021     Views: 54368

There are different types of government and parliamentary sources of information. The type of source it is will determine how it should be referenced.

Here are different types of government and parliamentary sources and how to identify them. Once you have identified the source, refer to the appropriate reference type in the MMU Harvard referencing guide and follow the format for that source.

  • Government command papers are issued by Government and presented to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.  Reports produced by UK government bodies can be command papers, along with green papers, white papers and treaties. 

Command papers can usually be identify by an official command paper number on the first or second page of the document and the number is preceded by an abbreviation of command, for example: Cmnd , Cmd, Cd, Cm, or CP .

Use reference type:  Government command papers

  • Acts of parliament or primary legislation are statute law passed by Parliament. This source of information will have 'Act' in the title, for example, the Housing Act 2004.

Use reference type: Acts of parliament

  • Bills are proposed legislation under consideration by Parliament. Once a bill has been enacted it becomes an Act of Parliament/Statute.

Use reference type: Bills

  • Statutory instruments  (SI) are secondary legislation, known as regulations, rules or orders.

Use reference type: Statutory Instruments

  • Parliamentary papers can be papers produced by Parliament and its committees. These papers are published as House of Commons or House of Lords papers. Parliamentary papers can also be papers presented to Parliament by bodies outside of Parliament. Many of these papers are then published under Parliament’s authority as House of Commons Papers.

Parliamentary papers can usually be identified by an official House of Commons or House of Lords reference number , which will be preceded by HC or HL respectively, for example: HC 395-I

Use reference type: Parliamentary papers

  • Parliamentary debates are held by both Houses of Parliament .  Transcripts of Parliamentary debates are known by the publication name of  Hansard.

Use reference type: Parliamentary debates

  • House of Commons Library briefing papers are research publications produced by UK Houses of Parliament Libraries to inform Members of the House of Commons and House of Lords. They will be clearly marked as a briefing paper and include a briefing paper number.

Use reference type: Briefing papers

  • For other sources by government departments, accessed as PDF documents, that do not fall under one of the specific types above, follow the format for an Online PDF document
  • Sometimes you may access information on a Government webpage, ie not downloaded as a PDF document. In this case, you should follow the format for a Webpage . See our FAQ How to cite information from the GOV.UK webpages for guidance on citing from this source.
  • Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 22 No 20

Related Topics

  • Referencing
  • MMU Harvard
  • © 2022 Manchester Metropolitan University
  • Library privacy notice
  • Freedom of Information
  • Accessibility

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

uk government research papers

  • Business and industry
  • Science and innovation
  • Research and development

International comparison of the UK research base, 2019

Comparison of the UK research base with research bases from a range of countries.

MS Excel Spreadsheet , 92 KB

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

International comparison of the UK research base, 2019. Accompanying note

PDF , 277 KB , 11 pages

This publication compares the UK’s research base with those from a range of countries and international benchmarks. Using data from Scopus, a database of academic publications and citations, it is made up of several different bibliometric indicators. The note which accompanies the data tables summarises the key findings with a focus on the UK.

Related content

Is this page useful.

  • Yes this page is useful
  • No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

  • International edition
  • Australia edition
  • Europe edition

A young man poses for a photograph in a garden

Revealed: key files shredded as UK government panic grew over infected blood deaths lawsuit

Lost documents prevented victims from finding out the truth, official inquiry told

Disastrous failures that caused the contaminated blood scandal were denied by ministers for decades after officials destroyed, lost and blocked access to key documents, memos submitted to the official inquiry reveal.

Several batches of files involving the work of a blood safety advisory committee were shredded as the government faced the threat of legal action, documents show. Patients who were given contaminated blood when they were children have also told the infected blood inquiry how their hospital medical files were destroyed or initially withheld.

About 3,000 people died from contaminated blood from commercial concentrated products for haemophiliacs and blood transfusions.

Dame Diana Johnson, the Labour MP who has campaigned for proper compensation and justice for the victims, said ministers were able to resist calls for a public inquiry because documents had not been disclosed exposing the failures. She said: “Successive governments took the line up until 2017 that there was no reason for a public inquiry and everything was done properly.”

A demonstration with placards including ‘Recognise all victims, hashtag Contaminated blood

Beatrice Morgan, a senior associate solicitor for the legal firm Leigh Day, which represents about 300 people affected by the scandal, said: “There was at the very least a total mismanagement of documents and many of our clients believe that there was a cover-up and they were purposely misled.”

In 1987 David Owen, a former health minister, asked for his ministerial papers because he was concerned officials had not heeded his advice in the 1970s for the UK to become self-sufficient in concentrated blood products, which would have prevented many deaths. Owen’s office was wrongly told his papers had been destroyed. The Department of Health and Social Care has conceded at the inquiry that his “ministerial papers should have been available at this time” and has since apologised to him.

In late 2004, Lord Jenkin, a former health secretary, contacted the department about access to files concerning contaminated blood. A briefing note drawn up for a meeting with him stated: “Many key papers from the 1970s and 1980s have been destroyed … We understand that papers were not adequately archived and were unfortunately destroyed in the early 1990s.”

The inquiry has also heard how several batches of minutes and background papers involving the work of the Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood were shredded between 1994 and 1998. The files were destroyed at a time when officials were told there was “considerable potential for litigation” over infected blood and after ministers were charged in France over the scandal in poisoning haemophiliacs.

Jason Evans outside the public inquiry in Westminster.

The government has acknowledged the destruction of files “was clearly wrong and should not have occurred”. An internal audit concluded “an arbitrary and unjustified decision most likely taken by an inexperienced member of staff” was the most likely explanation.

A lawyer for the health department told the inquiry that the advisory committee documents had been largely “reconstituted” and many other documents previously believed to be missing have since been traced. Campaigners say the failure to disclose the files over several years meant the scale of the failings which led to the scandal were covered up for years.

after newsletter promotion

Portrait of a schoolboy, Jonathan Colam-French

Jason Evans, founder of the Factor 8 campaign group, whose father Jonathan died in October 1993 after being infected with HIV and hepatitis C from a contaminated blood product, said: “What has happened has been a mixture of deliberate concealment and incompetence. By claiming documents had been destroyed, it also stopped campaigners looking for them. These files would have shown that all the risks were known all the way through and what happened could have been avoided.”

Many of those affected have also fought to get medical records involving the deaths of relatives. Evans was told by the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust that the medical files of his father no longer existed after he submitted a request in February 2016.

When a BBC producer contacted the trust with Evans’s consent a year later, the medical records were found within two days. In February 2021, the parliamentary and health service ombudsman found there had been maladministration by the trust.

Lawyers representing those affected by the scandal say many of their clients have never been able to access their records or have been provided with files with missing pages. Others were wrongly told their records had been destroyed.

Jonathan Colam-French, 53, from Lincolnshire, who was infected with hepatitis C from a commercial blood product, has sought unsuccessfully to obtain medical records concerning his treatment in Lincoln in the early 1980s. He has since discovered he was given the clotting product for a bruised finger when was a child. “I think it is suspicious they were deleted,” he said. “It would not be medically justified to give this for a bruised finger, and I consider there is strong evidence I was given factor 8 as part of a study.”

Phil Hayes, 51, from Doncaster, has also been unable to get access to key medical files after he was infected with hepatitis C in childhood with contaminated blood products. He was informed in about 2005 that he had been given commercial factor 8, but when he later asked for the relevant records he was told they had been destroyed. He said: “I believe there are files which the doctors have been able to get access to, but which I’ve not been allowed to see.”

Portrait of a young schoolboy, Phil Hayes

Andy Evans, chair of the Tainted Blood campaign, said the widespread destruction and withholding of files meant many people were unable to prove their claims. “Any compensation scheme must, moving forward, allow the balance of probability to favour the victim rather than the state,” he said. “It should not be upon the harmed to prove their harm was caused by the state, but for the state to prove it was not the culprit.”

Sir Brian Langstaff, the infected blood inquiry chair, will report later this month on what has been described as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS . He has already concluded wrongs were done at a “systemic” level.

A government spokesperson said the scandal was “an appalling tragedy that never should have happened” and it was working to deliver compensation to the victims.

In connection with the request by Evans for his father’s records, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust said: “Initial searches in 2016 of our Patient Management System failed to return any historical information relating to Mr Evans’s father. After further insight came to light, the records were located. The trust apologises for any upset and distress caused.”

  • Contaminated blood scandal
  • The Observer
  • Pharmaceuticals industry
  • Aids and HIV
  • Hepatitis C

Most viewed


  1. Research and statistics

    Individual Insolvency Statistics, April 2024. Monthly individual insolvency statistics for England and Wales, as well as Northern Ireland, and quarterly statistics for Scotland. For England and ...

  2. Research

    This briefing paper provides information on the Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill 2023-24 introduced by Laurence Robertson MP as a Private Member's Bill ... Research covering key Brexit moments, negotiations, the EU and its institutions, and UK-EU relations after Brexit. Coronavirus. Research relating to Covid-19 from the Commons ...

  3. Research briefings

    Our flagship briefings, POSTnotes and POSTbriefs, are publicly available. They are a product of peer review and rigorous horizon scanning. POST works on a range of topics including climate change, education, health and social care, digital tech and more. UK Parliament produces impartial analysis and research on a variety of topics.

  4. Publications

    Our publications showcase the IfG's sector-leading research, giving readers an impartial and evidence-based analysis of what makes good government - and what could be improved. Insight papers offer a concise run-down of key issues, including our snap analysis of current events such as changes of government or emerging external challenges ...

  5. The House of Commons Library

    Impartial research and data from the House of Commons Library on broadband in the UK, including coverage, speeds, infrastructure and government policy. Migration statistics This Commons Library briefing paper is a guide to understanding UK migration statistics.

  6. Research

    Sign-up to get the latest from POST delivered to your inbox, including new research, fellowship opportunities and upcoming events. Browse our impartial, peer reviewed research, produced in collaboration with specialists from academia, industry, government, and beyond.

  7. Research Briefings Publications

    The Bill's second reading in the Commons was on Friday 26 January 2024 and its committee stage was on Wednesday 13 March 2024. Remaining stages of the Bill in the House of Commons took place on 26 April 2024, where Bill was passed unamended. Second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords is scheduled for 17 May 2024. Research Briefing.

  8. Research publications

    Research briefings produced by the House of Lords Library for this week's business in the Chamber. Handbook for all parliamentary officials that prepare research, to help them meet the expectations of parliamentarians. Read research produced by the Libraries of both Houses and by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

  9. Parliamentary Papers

    Before starting your research you might find it useful ... Parliamentary Papers, 1715-2015 via UK Parliamentary Papers (Subscription service, available in universities and large reference libraries) Committee reports, 1997 to present via (Free Service) Command Papers and other Government papers, 2005 to present via (Free ...

  10. PDF Review of the UK Constitution

    of the UK constitution and to make robust recommendations for reform. Guided by our expert advisory panel, we have published our own original research papers, commissioned a series of specialist papers from leading academics and constitutional experts, and held roundtables and events across the UK. In this final

  11. The UK government's COVID-19 policy: assessing evidence ...

    In March 2020, COVID-19 prompted policy change in the UK at a speed and scale only seen during wartime. Throughout, UK government ministers emphasised their reliance on science and expertise to make the right choices at the right time, while their critics argued that ministers ignored key evidence and acted too little too late. Lessons from this debate should have a profound effect on future ...

  12. PDF International comparison of the UK research base, 2022

    Introduction. This note summarises key findings from the latest 'International comparison of the UK research base' statistical release2 and is an update of the 2019 release3. The release evaluates the UK's research performance in an international setting, by comparing different aspects of scholarly outputs across a selection of comparators.

  13. Parliament and government databases

    UK Parliamentary Papers. Access over 200,000 House of Commons sessional papers from 1715 to the present, with supplementary material back to 1688.

  14. UK Parliamentary Papers

    UK Parliamentary Papers - the richest and most detailed primary sources for the past three centuries, for Britain, its colonies, and the wider world. ... economics, foreign policy and more - government documents are essential. ProQuest's House of Commons Parliamentary Papers is the only online source for the complete file of 18th to 20th ...

  15. Full article: "A modern research profession': government social

    As we argue throughout this paper, government research professions offer a critical vantage point for developing new insights into the 'epistemic cultures' of research within government, ... For example, the most high-profile research unit in the UK Civil Service, the Behavioural Insights Team, also known as the 'Nudge Unit,' was ...

  16. Guides and databases: Harvard: Government/Official publication

    Name of government department or committee. Year of publication (in round brackets). Title (in italics). Place of publication: publisher. Series or paper number (in brackets) - if applicable. In-text citation: (Great Britain. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011). Reference list: Great Britain. Department of Education Science ...

  17. 2022 UK Government Data Survey research report

    Over the past few years, the UK government has started taking data seriously. The appointment of Chief Data Officers for many departments, the foundation of the Central Digital and Data Office, the launch of the National Data Strategy, and the emphasis on data in the Declaration on Government Reform all indicate that the government is putting data at the top of the agenda.

  18. CORE

    Research Policy Adviser Aggregation plays an increasingly essential role in maximising the long-term benefits of open access, helping to turn the promise of a 'research commons' into a reality. The aggregation services that CORE provides therefore make a very valuable contribution to the evolving open access environment in the UK.

  19. Q. How do I reference UK government and parliamentary sources?

    Reports produced by UK government bodies can be command papers, along with green papers, white papers and treaties. ... House of Commons Library briefing papers are research publications produced by UK Houses of Parliament Libraries to inform Members of the House of Commons and House of Lords. They will be clearly marked as a briefing paper and ...

  20. International comparison of the UK research base, 2019

    Details. This publication compares the UK's research base with those from a range of countries and international benchmarks. Using data from Scopus, a database of academic publications and ...

  21. Revealed: key files shredded as UK government panic grew over infected

    In 1987 David Owen, a former health minister, asked for his ministerial papers because he was concerned officials had not heeded his advice in the 1970s for the UK to become self-sufficient in ...