Coronavirus has changed everything. Make sense of it all with the Waugh Zone, our evening politics briefing. Sign up now.
The Department for Education’s own chief scientific adviser stunned MPs by revealing he had not made an assessment of plans to reopen English schools amid the Covid-19 crisis.
Osama Rahman suggested to the Commons science and technology committee that he had not personally assessed how the proposal to restart classes for primary pupils could be implemented effectively.
He added that the decision to push for a June 1 reopening timetable was not a decision made by the DfE, but by the cabinet on the advice of the government’s Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage).
Rahman also surprised the committee by suggesting that Public Health England had not yet approved new guidance on the June 1 reopening proposals, describing it as a “first draft”.
In evidence to the MPs, he further admitted he did not know how many under-18s had died from the virus, and declared that children could “possibly” become vectors for transmission under the government plans.
When asked by Labour MP Zara Sultana what assessment he had made on how effectively the new guidance could be implemented, the DfE’s chief scientific adviser replied: “I haven’t.”
He also suggested he had not attended Sage meetings on personal protective equipment (PPE).
Following concern over his remarks, Rahman later sent a letter to the committee offering “clarification” of his evidence, stressing that he and the department had been “closely involved” in the new guidance.
Growing unease among education unions over the June 1 timetable spilled over into outright opposition on Wednesday, when they urged education secretary Gavin Williamson to “step back” from the date amid safety concerns for staff, parents and pupils.
Appearing by video link before the committee, the DfE’s chief scientist and director of analysis faced repeated questions about the safety of the government’s plans to reopen primary schools next month.
Rahman said the decisions on the guidance had been taken by Sage, with the details for schools discussed by a special subgroup.
On the issue of what underpinned the DfE decision to reopen schools on June 1, Rahman said: “That was not a departmental decision – that was a cabinet decision following advice from Sage.”
He also said the DfE is “going to be working with PHE [Public Health England]” on the first draft of the new guidance. “I’m sure we will be discussing this with PHE and others,” he said. “I expect that guidance to be developed.”
The June 1 reopening – with reception classes, Year 1 and Year 6 the first to return – “is dependent on a bunch of conditions being met”, he added. Evidence would be published by Sage in due course, he said.
In his later letter to the committee, Rahman said “my team and I have been closely involved” in advising on the government’s proposals and “I have full confidence in the plan to reopen education institutions”.
He added that the “final clearances” on the guidance were secured from Public Health England and the chief medical officer Chris Whitty, and that he had attended all the meetings of a Sage sub-group for schools.
But Rahman also surprised some MPs when he talked about the uncertainty of the evidence about how much children could transmit the virus to adults.
Asked directly by SNP MP Carol Monaghan – a former teacher – to clarify the role of children in transmitting the virus, Rahman said there was no evidence to suggest children transmitted the virus any more than adults.
“There are some studies which suggest that they might transmit less than adults, but this evidence is mixed, it’s quite early, and so there’s a low degree of confidence. What I would say is currently the evidence would suggest that they might transmit it less.”
Monaghan then asked: “So, since there’s a low degree of confidence, we are potentially putting together hundreds of potential vectors, that can then go and transmit. Is that correct?” Rahman replied: “Possibly, depending on school sizes.”
The SNP MP said: “I don’t think the profession is going to be at all satisfied by what they’re hearing at the moment, or certainly been put at ease by it.”
Elsewhere in his evidence Rahman stressed that risk could never be ruled out. “There’s always a risk of transmission. Can we get the risk of transmission to zero? No. The question is: ‘What can you put in place that will help reduce risks as much as possible?’
“So there will always be always some risk. And the question is: ‘Is that a tolerable risk?’ Even going to school anyway is not a risk-free environment.”
Monaghan told HuffPost: “It was clear from the Chief Scientist’s response that there is little evidence regarding the role of children in transmission.
“If it turns out that children can act as asymptomatic vectors for the virus, then opening schools in England as widely as the Government hopes to do is a sure way of causing the R value to rapidly increase. Without more robust scientific evidence this is a potentially harmful risk.”
However, chief medical officer Whitty said this week that Sage modelling suggested that careful reopening would not raise the R or reproduction rate of Covid-19.
Government insiders stress that ‘bubbles’ of small classes and teachers will remove the need for protective equipment and social distancing among very young children. Any symptoms of coronavirus would be more easily detected, and testing and tracing implemented swiftly.
Patrick Roach of the NASUWT teaching union said: “The admissions by the Department for Education’s Chief Scientific Adviser are truly shocking and disturbing.
“The Government has simply not provided a single shred of evidence that opening schools from June 1st will be safe for children or for teachers.”
Earlier, education secretary Gavin Williamson hit out at “scaremongering” by Labour over the risks associated with the phased return, stressing the need to help the most disadvantaged children to catch up on schoolwork missed during the lockdown.