The United Kingdom’s public inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic, now deep into its third year, has become one of the most expensive public investigations in British history, sparking fierce debate over its cost, effectiveness, and the lessons it promises to deliver. With the government’s own response bill surpassing £100 million—on top of the inquiry’s direct costs of £192 million—taxpayers are footing a bill that’s already more than 50% higher than previously anticipated, according to recent reporting by the BBC and official Cabinet Office figures.
Launched in 2022 and chaired by Baroness Hallett, the inquiry was tasked with an ambitious mandate: to investigate every major aspect of the UK’s pandemic response, from preparedness and government decision-making to the broader social, economic, and health impacts. As of December 2025, only two of the ten planned modules have been completed, focusing on pandemic preparedness and the government’s decision-making process. The final report is not expected until 2027, with hearings scheduled to conclude by spring 2026.
But even as the inquiry grinds on, its ballooning costs and contentious findings have become a lightning rod for criticism. Analysis of Cabinet Office documents by the BBC revealed that, from April 2023 to June 2025, government departments spent approximately £101 million responding to the inquiry. The bulk of this expenditure was racked up by five key departments: the Cabinet Office, Home Office, Department of Health and Social Care, Treasury, and UK Health Security Agency. More than half of the sum—over £56 million—was spent on legal fees, including hiring external lawyers, while £44.6 million went to staff costs for the teams tasked with preparing evidence.
At its peak, 286 full-time equivalent staff were dedicated to the government’s response, with the latest figure standing at 248 as of mid-2025. These numbers do not include the time spent by officials preparing for and appearing as witnesses, suggesting the true cost could be even higher. The Cabinet Office itself acknowledged that these figures “are not precise for accounting purposes,” indicating further spending may yet come to light.
The inquiry’s scale and cost have prompted sharp rebukes from multiple quarters. John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, called the mounting bill “an absolute disgrace,” telling the BBC, “These new figures show the total cost to taxpayers will be far higher than previously feared. Ministers must urgently get a grip on the spiralling costs of the Covid Inquiry and commit to delivering answers swiftly and efficiently.”
Bereaved families and advocacy groups, while supportive of the inquiry’s mission, have also voiced concerns about its efficiency and adversarial nature. A spokesman for the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK told the BBC, “The work of the inquiry is vital and any costs would be recouped many times over in the future if lessons were learned by reducing the economic impact of the next pandemic as well as saving lives. But the inquiry process is far from perfect.” The group has thrown its support behind the proposed Hillsborough Law, which would strengthen the legal duty of public authorities to assist public inquiries, aiming to make future investigations more efficient and less combative. “Only then can we bring down the cost of future inquiries while protecting access to justice,” the spokesman added.
The inquiry itself has not shied away from acknowledging its unprecedented scope and complexity. A spokesperson for the UK Covid-19 Inquiry stated, “The UK Covid-19 Inquiry is unlike any previous public inquiry. It was given a very broad scope because it is investigating multiple aspects of a pandemic that affected everyone in society. On opening the inquiry in 2022, the chair, Baroness Hallett, set out the substantial task it faced and made clear that to do this properly would take time and have a significant cost.”
Despite these challenges, the inquiry’s legal team maintains it is “working faster than any previous public inquiry of comparable size,” with nine of ten sets of hearings expected to be completed by the end of 2025. Reports will be published throughout 2026 and early 2027, with recommendations intended to “better protect the United Kingdom when the next pandemic strikes.”
Yet, the relationship between the government and the inquiry has often been fraught. Inquiry sources described the government’s approach as “hostile and difficult,” with repeated delays in providing documents and attempts to block the release of key information. This tension boiled over in 2023, when the government lost a High Court case over its refusal to hand over former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s WhatsApp messages, diaries, and notebooks. The Cabinet Office later defended its actions as an effort to clarify the principle of what information an inquiry can demand, but the failed legal challenge was widely criticized as a waste of time and public money.
Beyond the financial and procedural wrangling, the substance of the inquiry’s findings has also come under fire. Michael Simmons, economics editor at the Spectator, lambasted the inquiry for repeating what he called “pandemic-era myths” and relying on questionable modelling. In a conversation with spiked’s Fraser Myers, Simmons dismissed the inquiry’s high-profile claim that 23,000 deaths could have been avoided if the March 2020 lockdown had started a week earlier. “I think it’s total nonsense, and actually disastrous for any credibility the inquiry was clinging to,” Simmons said, arguing that the figure relied on flawed assumptions and ignored real-world data showing that voluntary behavior changes had already begun before the official lockdown.
Simmons criticized the inquiry for “baking in the same mistakes that No10 made throughout the pandemic,” including the assumption that people would not alter their behavior unless ordered to by the government. He pointed to Sweden’s experience—where no government-mandated lockdown was imposed and excess deaths were lower—as evidence that the inquiry failed to consider alternative strategies. “The inquiry should at least acknowledge that lockdowns carry massive costs—to education, to children, to the economy—which we won’t be able to fully quantify for decades,” Simmons argued.
He also noted that while the economic scars of Covid are still felt, politicians seem reluctant to revisit the pandemic era. “I think politicians don’t talk about that because we just all want to forget about it,” Simmons remarked, highlighting the profound shifts in work and health behaviors, as well as the lasting impact on inflation and national debt.
The Cabinet Office, for its part, insists that the government “is fully committed to supporting the work of the inquiry and to learning lessons from the pandemic to ensure the UK is better prepared for a future pandemic.” But as the inquiry moves toward its conclusion, questions over its cost, approach, and value to the public remain hotly contested.
As Britain awaits the inquiry’s final verdict, the debate over its price tag and purpose serves as a reminder of the enduring challenges—and divisions—left in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
