Exclusive: Calls to end secrecy of body driving UK's Covid lockdowns

At the peak of the coronavirus pandemic in April, Boris Johnson pledged "maximum possible transparency" over the evidence behind Britain's lockdown.

Six months later, with the country facing a second wave of Covid-19, senior MPs and scientists believe that promise may have been broken.

Concerns have been raised over the secrecy surrounding the Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC), an "opaque" new Government body handed responsibility in July for guiding the response to the virus.

Led by a senior spy, the JBC does not publish details of its deliberations, the sources of its evidence or its key personnel. Nevertheless, its advice to ministers is understood to have guided recent decisions on where to enforce the local lockdowns affecting millions of people across the country.

Greg Clark, the chairman of the science and technology committee, said the public "deserve answers" on the JBC if the Government is to maintain public trust in its decision-making.

"The transparency of the JBC is simply not good enough at the moment," he told the Telegraph. "Its role in the response to the pandemic is far too opaque, and that needs to change.

"First we need to know more about the membership of the JBC – who are they? We also need to see the minutes of key discussions to understand the advice given to ministers. 

"Then we need to see the inputs – the source of the evidence and data upon which these conclusions have been reached. These are important questions, to which the public deserve answers."

Earlier this year, the Government was forced to publish the full membership of the Sage scientific committee after a row over transparency. The chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, later agreed it had been "an error" not to be more open with the public.

Mr Clark said ministers must apply the same standards to the JBC, given its key role in the handling of the second wave.

"There are also questions over whether the role of Sage has changed, and how much responsibility has been handed over to the JBC. We need to know the reasons behind these changes," he added.

Since it took over the Covid response in July, the JBC has been handed the responsibility of setting the national Covid alert level, and advises on which countries should be added or taken off the UK's quarantine list. 

Recommendations are then reviewed and agreed by the chief medical officers of the four UK nations.

It has an "insight team" that monitors local spikes of Covid-19 and advises health officials and local authorities, reporting to ministers including Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, every morning. 

Documents show the JBC's role includes "deciding what responses are required" to rising infections, "overseeing the response to those cases and outbreaks" and offering advice on the closure of workplaces, schools, pubs and restaurants. 

In recent months, the JBC is understood to have recruited dozens of academics, scientists and civil servants, many seconded from the Alan Turing Institute, the UK's national institute for data science and artificial intelligence. 

It is led by Clare Gardiner, seconded from her role head of cyber resilience and strategy at the National Cyber Security Centre – a branch of signals intelligence agency GCHQ. 

She reports to Baroness Dido Harding, the chief of NHS Test and Trace, while the entire JBC organisation falls under the control of the Department of Health, which answers to the Mr Hancock. Government sources insisted the body was largely staffed by civil servants meaning it was "not appropriate" to release their identities.

John Drury, professor of social psychology at the University of Sussex and a Sage sub-committee member, said the secrecy around the membership and decision-making of the JBC was "baffling".

"I know academics and scientists are involved, much like Sage, and yet we don't know who they are or how they are coming up with their advice. It's not acceptable," he said.

"In general, there is a feeling among Sage scientists that we have been sidelined."

"The JBC has been around for months now, but the public seem to know very little about them. Transparency is a key principle of scientific research, and it should be applied to the JBC. When you are seen to be open about the advice you are giving, people are more likely to listen and take action."

A Government spokesman said: "The Joint Biosecurity Centre supports decision-making. It does not make the decisions on specific measures or restrictions.

"There is clear decision-making structure for local, regional and national restrictions, which is led by ministers and takes into account analysis and evidence from a range of organisations including the JBC, NHS Test and Trace, Sage and Public Health England. 

"This decision-making framework is published on the Government's website. We have always sought to be as clear and transparent as possible, publishing a wide range of data and evidence about how the virus is spreading across the UK."