The Covid Inquiry has significance for many people living in and connected with Suffolk: for the NHS and care sector staff who looked after patients, for the families of those who lost their lives to Covid-19, and not least because Matt Hancock, the MP for West Suffolk, was the Secretary of State for Health throughout most of the pandemic.

If the objective of a public inquiry is to provide a sense of accountability after tragic events, or catharsis for those most affected by them, then the Hallett inquiry into Britain’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic is doing a good job. But if the main purpose of the inquiry is to learn lessons in a timely manner about what went well, what could have been done better and how to best prepare for the next pandemic, then it looks increasingly unlikely that the Hallett Inquiry will deliver.

The Covid Inquiry’s public hearings will last for another three years and a final report is unlikely before 2027 at the earliest. £100 million has already been spent and this is likely to more than double by the time the final report is published. It is difficult not to consider this alongside the Government’s assessment that the chances of a new pandemic are as high as one in four in the next five years. Given this assessment, it would certainly be helpful to understand what we are doing well and what needs to improve before that pandemic is upon us.

The adversarial courtroom style of the Covid Inquiry proceedings has encouraged a focus on personalities rather than issues, which is unhelpful. The barristers appear sometimes to be playing to the media gallery rather than encouraging open and frank discussion about the issues and the genuine reflection that is required by key decision makers in order for us to learn the right lessons for the future.

Britain has become obsessed with inquiries. It is the reflex reaction of many politicians and armchair commentators to call for an inquiry when something goes wrong, no matter how serious or trivial the subject matter. The best inquiries are quick, focused and limited in their scope, like the foot and mouth inquiry in 2001, which led to swift and meaningful action.

However, other inquiries drag on for years because their remit is too broad, and issues that are not central to their purpose are included in their evidence gathering and final report. The Covid Inquiry’s problem is crystalised in its slogan: “Every story matters.” A very modern slogan that potentially allows every one of us in a country of over 65 million people to contribute to the proceedings. Other countries do it differently and better. Sweden’s national Covid commission published its final report in early 2022 and major inquiries in France and Australia have already been completed.

In this country, the House of Common’s Health and Care Select Committee published a joint report with the Common’s Science and Technology Committee over two years ago. Whilst there are legitimate concerns that this report may lack some independence – the committee chairmen were, after all, required to evaluate their own actions in preparing for a pandemic during a time when they were cabinet ministers - the report did provide 38 clear recommendations about how we can learn lessons from the pandemic.

The All Party Parliamentary Group for Covid of which I was a member, has also made recommendations about what we can do better in the future. It is doubtful that the official Covid Inquiry will contradict any of these recommendations or indeed make any significant new recommendations when it eventually reports back in four years time.

That is not to say that once the froth of the media circus about text messages and personalities has passed, the Covid Inquiry will not make useful and sensible recommendations when it does, eventually report back. However, there is an urgent need for answers for governments throughout the world about pandemics, starting with what can be done at an international level to stop the next one from happening.

There also comes the question of how government and the NHS should be organised to ensure it can act with speed, expertise, and a clear chain of command on the discovery of a previously unknown or new more deadly strain of a virus.

Another consideration will be how policy makers should weigh up the costs and benefits of lockdowns. This is quite a different question to consider to when is the right time to lockdown, if lockdown is the right decision to make. Understanding how to balance the risks and benefits of lockdowns by weighing up any immediate threats including to life against the long term health, economic and educational consequences is important, as well as understanding how it may be possible to avoid lockdowns altogether whilst also protecting lives.

There are big questions for the Covid Inquiry, but my fear is that by the time it gives us the answers, we shall already have needed them.

Dr Dan Poulter is Conservation MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich