THE Government's decision to cancel direct flights to the UK from West African countries affected by the Ebola outbreak has been sharply criticised by MPs, who said it had "no basis in science".
The Commons Public Accounts Committee said the suspension of direct flights in the face of what it said was "scaremongering" by sections of the media increased the cost of dealing with the disease and may have led to further loss of life.
Direct flights from the region - including a British Airways route from Liberia to Heathrow with a stopover in Sierra Leone - were halted in August amid concerns passengers could bring the disease into the UK.
In October, Gambia Bird airlines was given permission to resume flights from Sierra Leone to Gatwick, only for them to be swiftly suspended again.
Aid agencies have complained the restrictions hamper efforts to get assistance to the stricken region and the committee said they should now be lifted.
"The revocation of licences to carriers to fly direct to the region was a political decision with no basis in science and was inconsistent with World Health Organisation (WHO) advice," the committee said.
"In our judgment, it will inevitably have led to an increase in the costs of dealing with the outbreak and, potentially, to further loss of life."
The committee echoed the findings of previous reports on the crisis that the response of the WHO and the international community to the outbreak was "totally inadequate".
While it praised the "bravery" of British volunteers and members of the armed forces who were now working in Sierra Leone, it said the Department for International Development had been "far too slow" to react the developing situation.
"The department could and should have listened to and responded to the views of Medecins Sans Frontieres and others on the ground who were warning of the seriousness of the outbreak rather than relying on it simply to follow the trajectory of previous outbreaks, which there was every indication it would not do," it said.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article