Cannan Refutes Claims Reviews Lack Independence

The Chief Minister has rejected claims by the British Medical Association that reviews into the pandemic and the handling of the Dr Ranson tribunal aren’t independent.

Alf Cannan has responded to a letter from Professor Philip Banfield, published earlier today.

In his letter, Prof Banfield said that the BMA was ‘not satisfied’ that the Covid Review, led by Kate Brunner KC, and the review into the handling of Dr Ranson’s case by DHSC, to be conducted by Richard Wright KC would uncover the truth.

He added: ‘Neither will be able to uncover the truth and hold those accountable responsible for their actions given their reliance on the Isle of Man acting with integrity and honesty. Both truth and accountability are of fundamental importance to healthcare staff who worked to care for people during the pandemic, as well as those families who sadly lost loved ones, or themselves been affected by Covid-19.

‘For all of the reasons stated above Dr Ranson has no confidence in either review and has advised me that she will not be participating in neither.

Mr Cannan has tonight rejected this and said: ‘The Isle of Man government is fully committed to identifying lessons from the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and is doing so through a robust, transparent and independent process.’

He added: ‘This review, led by Kate Brunner KC, has independence of both action and thought and is able to act with complete freedom – entirely unfettered from any obligation to the Isle of Man Government.

‘Kate Brunner KC is entitled to call for all forms of evidence as needed. You should also be aware that Kate Brunner KC has powers to seek a formal public inquiry, if deemed necessary; and this is clearly outlined in the terms of reference.’

The Chief Minister has also said that the government has provided the review with ‘tens of thousands of documents pertaining to meetings, actions and general correspondence that took place during the period from December 2019 to the April 1 2022’.

He said that the review by Mr Wright KC is a Tynwald supported and commissioned inquiry and that he ‘is able to consider new and pre-existing written evidence (published and unpublished) and has the authority to interview witnesses’.

Mr Cannan ended his letter by saying: ‘I cannot see how your intervention today has any beneficial effect in terms of supporting the interests of healthcare professionals. I reject the content of your letter in the strongest possible terms.’