Trust in the government’s response to coronavirus is built on open consultation

It is normal for government policies to be tweaked after they are proposed. Consultations take place. Concessions follow public and private pressure.

But these are not normal times. This is a government in a hurry, determined to demonstrate energy and a grip on a fast-moving situation. At the same time, it is drawing up complex, and at times unprecedented, policies and plans. But announcing policies before they are ready, and changing them in full view of the public, is both a confusing and dangerous way to proceed. By moving fast, the government risks leaving people behind. And in the case of quarantine rules for travellers to the UK, the government has repeatedly got ahead of itself.

Government policy on quarantine has been briefed, announced and then modified

On 22 May, the home secretary, Priti Patel, announced that on 8 June the UK would be introducing mandatory quarantine for travellers:

“…so that people arriving into the UK will be required to self-isolate for 14 days, except those on a short list of exemptions.”

This policy can be seen as a logical step, following a successful and sustained reduction in transmission rates in the UK. If track, trace and isolate can keep pressing down on cases, so care can be taken about visitors arriving who may transmit the virus. Getting to this point, however, has not been easy.

Compulsory quarantine was first floated as applying to all visitors. Exemptions were then suggested for the Common Travel Area (CTA) – Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles. There were briefly agreed exemptions for France, too, though these were rapidly withdrawn. Then ‘air bridges’ to specific countries were discussed, but were also rapidly backtracked on. Free flow was to be allowed between Ireland and the UK because they were contiguous, but what about France, given the existence of the Channel Tunnel? A call between the prime minister and the French president, Emmanuel Macron, following Johnson’s broadcast, seemingly settled the question. A joint statement, issued by Downing Street on 10 May, said:

“No quarantine measures would apply to travellers coming from France at this stage; any measures on either side would be taken in a concerted and reciprocal manner.”

But by 15 May the proposal was dropped, an apparent recognition that the easiest way to avoid quarantine in the UK would be to fly to Paris and get a train to London. But while that loophole was being corrected, the road haulage industry was discussing another reality with government – supply chains from food to cars depend on foreign lorries. Thus lorry drivers were added to the quarantine exemptions, and the policy changed again.

Then, one week after the publication of ‘Our Plan to Rebuild’ on 11 May, transport secretary Grant Shapps was telling the Transport Select Committee about considering:

“…things like air bridges enabling people from other areas, other countries who have themselves achieved lower levels of coronavirus infection to come to the country.”

This idea lasted a day before Downing Street distanced itself from the proposal – "under consideration but not agreed government policy". The home secretary confirmed, during her announcement, that:

“…this is not for today but this doesn’t mean we should rule this out in the future.”

However, speaking to the Liaison Committee on 27 May, the prime minister revived the possibility of air bridges being in place by the end of June, subject to conditions.

Half-formed policies are being presented as finalised – then rewritten in the public eye

The evolution of quarantine policy reveals much about the government's decision-making during the pandemic. There is a style of policy described as ‘Announce and Defend’ – governments in a hurry find consultation too time-consuming, so simply push on. This government has taken the step beyond that. ‘Ready? Fire! Aim!’ adjustments are made in real time and plain sight as concessions are made to public and private arguments.

The approach is, in part, a product of the tension between having a ‘wartime government’ tempo – acting urgently to deal with a crisis – and the perceived need for something new to say at the daily press conference. On the issue of quarantine alone, the government has set out five or six policy positions in as many weeks. This crisis is unprecedented and fast-moving. However, in rushing policy announcements, by attempting to serve up 'good news', and by striving to demonstrate a tight grip on the situation, ministers are creating more uncertainty.

It has now been reported that quarantine measures will be reviewed every three weeks, with the BBC's Newsnight reporting that ministers are looking at ‘elegant ways’ around the quarantine. Traditionally a u-turn on policy shows a weakness in government. It can be due to a failure of policy design, where policy aims or implementation create a public backlash – as with the poll tax. Or it can be a collapse of backbench support as government MPs revolt against a policy, as happened over ID cards. It is rare that all these factors coincide. Rarer still is the current situation where that happens over a policy which has not yet been published in full.

Consultation builds consent and supports compliance

The development of quarantine policy is a study in balancing the competing demands of returning the economy to normality and mitigating the risk of reviving the circulation virus. In normal times, briefing the media on policy is a legitimate way to float an idea and to test the temperature. It can also be attractive because it shows responsiveness and gives momentum, perhaps finding a route towards some consensus.

However, the collective response to the pandemic means that lot of positions have to be considered and a lot of voices heard if government is to achieve a consensus, and there will rarely be complete consensus about policies as complex and controversial as mandatory quarantine for travellers. 

Compliance and trust will be built on public consent – and that is best gained by the slow and steady consultation on a fully detailed proposal.