FUTURE TEST: What public sector communicators need to know about the first part of the COVID-19 report

I’ve a theory that everyone in the public sector has a to do list where emergency planning is permanently 9th on the list.

It’s there and you can show people but you’re just too busy to do anything much about it. 

Yet, March 2020 when COVID-19 struck planning list were obliterated by an incident measured in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of lives.

For public sector communicators, it was a tunnel of 16-hour days, stress, worry, burn out, worry and hands, face, space.

The COVID-19 Enquiry has published its first set of findings on how prepared we were to face the pandemic. Why have an enquiry? Because one day there will be another one.

I’ve decided to read the document for you because if its on your list at all it is probably no higher than 9th.

Here’s what public sector comms need to know.

Preparation was a shit show

Just how much of a confused shit show preparation was can be best illustrated by the flow chart which shows how things would work. 

If you look at the UK map from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and think your own country was better let me tell you no, it wasn’t. 

A confused web of bodies, duties, laws and responsibilities that nobody can understand least of all in an emergency. Within them were documents, the report says, with opaque language designed to deflect from work not being done.

Bad planning lead to more death

In short, the report says that more people died because thought in the planning stage wasn’t given.

There was no allowance for the fact that the pandemic would hit some parts of society more. This led to more people dying if they had a condition such as heart disease or if they lived in a deprived area or were from an ethnic minority group.

Lessons from the past were not learned and there was no space for dissenting voices.

In short, the report is clear that the planning process failed.

So what’s recommended?

The most headline grabbing is that the UK government and the three devolved governments need to create an independent new UK-wide body for responding to emergencies. 

All this would also see the current network of local resilience forums in England and equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland replaced. 

Once the new body is up and running exercises should be done tio test how effective they are and then lessons need to be adopted. 

But the problem is, governments don’t know what’s going on locally and the boundaries of these local bodies don’t always tally with boundaries for the NHS, police and other bodies. This needs to change, the report says.

So does the mish-mash of having public health representation on these bodies. Sometimes they are part of them and sometimes not.

Communicating in England and Wales

Of course, public sector communicators will be looking out for the word ‘communications’ in this document. 

Rightly, the voices of the bereaved are uppermost and can be found in panelled quotes in the document. This is really important as it helps decision makers remember just why they are doing this. I hope when it gets to it other patriots of the report will draw from the experience of public sector communicators.

With this in mind, one passage stands out. 

 The directors of public health, the public health workforce and local government have a critical contribution to make to pandemic preparedness and resilience. Their knowledge and skills are an important local and national resource to be drawn upon in whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience.95 They are in regular contact with the local population and therefore have an important role in communicating their needs to the institutions whose responsibility it is to prepare for and build resilience to whole-system civil emergencies.96 There should be far greater involvement of directors of public health and local public health teams in developing those plans. 

Those at the coalface in the pandemic have spoken to me about messages coming from the top down with little chance to influence them. After the white heat of Boris Johnson’s 10 Downing Street stay at home announcement the national message were least effective locally. Messages with local voices better suited to an area worked best. If this is what plays out from the report this could be a good thing. 

Are public health directors good at communicating? I’ve heard some pretty conflicting stories. Public health is a local government thing so prepare to step forward local government communicators with your best advice and your best diplomatic manner.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

There’s a different set-up in Scotland with a resilience division of Scottish Government. In Wales, there are separate processes. There’s not much in the report about communications for either country. Although Wales’ systems were called ‘labyrinthine’ so good luck in trying to understand how things work from a standing start.

In Northern Ireland, the suspension of the power sharing agreement which saw politicians absent themselves didn’t help, the report said. Infection rates more closely tracked with the Republic of Ireland rather than the rest of the UK which makes sense given the freedom of movement.

Whatever. The UK-wide approach to tackling the next big emergency will be simplified and UK-wide, the report says. 

Preparing for the next 

It’s entirely right that the document focuses on how the arms of government can be made to work more effectively next time. There’s lots in the report for emergency planning nerds.

The key recommendation is for a UK-wide independent statutory body for whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience. There’s an emphasis in asking what the third sector, public health and community consultation in the regular decision-making too. Presumably, this would be a communications task, would it? 

What’s worrying is that communications doesn’t really feature in the report. Maybe that will come. The public sector communicator needs to look through the document for places where they can put a hand up. 

One place they can try and use sharp elbows is where the report looks at the importance of what capabilities there are on the ground. A second is to take part in exercises when they are staged and be vocal during them. The report is clear that exercises need to be staged and their lessons implemented.

Mind, you it was nice to read the report’s war on jargon…

‘as jargon obscures communication rather than enlightens the reader.’

I feel this needs to be printed out, memorised and then quoted as a reason for making communication clearer. 

Of course, the worry is that emergency planning remains perpetually 9th on the list until the next time.