Covid inquiry live: Priti Patel admits policing of Sarah Everard vigil was ‘totally inappropriate’
Ex-home secretary says police generally struck right balance between protest and Covid restrictions
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Dame Priti Patel has admitted to the Covid inquiry that the policing of a vigil for murdered marketing executive Sarah Everard was “totally inappropriate”.
The former home secretary said she was “dismayed” by the policing of the vigil in early 2021. The Metropolitan Police have since apologised and paid damages to two of those who were arrested.
However, Dame Priti said she felt the police generally struck the right balance between enforcing coronavirus restrictions and upholding people’s right to protest – despite such matters feeling “uncomfortable” at the time.
Earlier today, former top police chief Martin Hewitt criticised localised Covid rules, the speed at which they changed, and the tier system of different regulations for different areas of the country.
He told the inquiry that localised tiers made it “incredibly difficult for even a perfectly law-abiding and committed citizen to understand precisely what that meant for them in their own personal circumstances”, while having different regulations “on opposite sides of the same road” made policing more difficult.
Jun Pang, the policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, is also giving evidence to the inquiry.
ICYMI
Matt Hancock wanted to personally decide – rather than doctors or the public – “who should live and who should die” if hospitals became overwhelmed by coronavirus patients, the former NHS boss has said.
On a fourth consecutive day of bombshell evidence at the official Covid inquiry, Lord Simon Stevens, who led NHS England until 2021, made the startling claim, adding: “Fortunately, this horrible dilemma never crystallised.”
Mr Hancock made the comments after ministers were told in mid-February 2020 that Covid could lead to as many as 840,000 deaths in a “reasonable worst-case scenario”, the inquiry was told. The prediction sparked the “unresolved but fundamental ethical debate” about who should be prioritised for NHS care and how this should be decide.
In his witness statement, the peer said: “The secretary of state for health and social care took the position that in this situation he – rather than, say, the medical profession or the public – should ultimately decide who should live and who should die.”
Hancock wanted to decide who should live and who should die – former NHS boss
Dominic Cummings asked whether the true problem was him ‘calling Hancock “a lying c*** killing people’” or ‘Hancock actually being a lying c*** killing people’
Watch: Government ‘was a week late with Covid interventions’
Sir Christopher Wormald, the top civil servant in the Department for Health and Social Care, said with hindsight the government was at least a week late in imposing measures.
Watch: Boris Johnson ‘did not understand difference between minimising mortality’ and Covid
The former prime minister failed to grasp the distinction between minimising mortality and trying to stop most people catching the virus, according to Mark Sedwill, the then Cabinet Secretary, the Covid inquiry heard.
The truth did not go down well with Hancock, says ex-medical chief
The former medical director of Public Health England said her “main concern” in early 2020 was that her “situational awareness advice was not always welcome”.
Professor Yvonne Doyle said “there was a distance” between herself and ministers, particularly Matt Hancock, at the end of January and “quite a bit” of February.
“It followed a media interview I had done at the end of January where I said straight that there could well be cases in the country – which of course there were 10 days later – and that we were unclear about, but were prepared to consider, that asymptomatic infection could occur, very unclear about transmission at that point,” she told the inquiry.
“This does not go down well, I’m afraid. It may well have been my presentation or the way I did that interview, but I felt it was the truth. I was telling the truth.
“The way that was handled was that I was advised not to do any further media, and that the secretary of state would need to clear all media, which of course we agreed to. But also that it was probably best if I just kept a distance for a while until things settle down, which I did.”
Prof Doyle said the ethos of Public Health England was to support ministers.
“I did feel I had let him down in some way,” she added. “But I still felt I had spoken the truth.”
Hancock told medical chief not to ‘patronise’ him
Matt Hancock, who was health secretary at the start of the Covid outbreak told Public Health England’s medical director Yvonne Doyle “not to patronise him” when she warned that the virus could be in the UK in January 2020, she told the inquiry.
She said after a media interview she gave, there had been distance between her and ministers.
She warned any vaccine could be months away and she had been telling the truth - but after that Mr Hancock told her not to give media interviews.
When the minister made his displeasure clear, she apologised and said she was sorry if the science had let him down, Ms Doyle told the hearing.
“I was telling the truth. I was advised not to do any further media…probably best to keep my distance,” she said.
Leading civil servant scolded by Covid inquiry counsel
Sir Christopher Wormald, the top civil servant in the Department for Health and Social Care, received something of a telling off earlier from the inquiry’s lead counsel, who interjected to ask him – in a heavily enunciated fashion – “will you please just wait for the question?”
Government was 'a week late' with Covid interventions
Sir Christopher Wormald said the government was a “week late” with all non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) leading to the first lockdown, reports our political correspondent Archie Mitchell.
He also said the November lockdown was implemented too late and that was his view at the time.
He said: “With hindsight, we were at least a week late at all points of the NPI decisions. I agreed with the decisions at the time and timing.
“But, looking back, we should have done each things on the 12th, 16th, 23rd ... at least a week earlier.”
He added: “In March, our lack of knowledge and understanding about the virus and taking decisions in considerable uncertainty.
“That is not the case for the second lockdown. By this point we have a lot of testing. We know a lot about the virus. We’re not modelling, we basically know how it goes up and down.”
Top civil servant says he was concerned about 'Iraq-style’ mixing of factual and political Covid advice
‘We will never know whether Govt’s initial action plan could have worked’
The country will never know whether Boris Johnson’s package of measures announced on 16 March 2020 would have worked, Sir Christopher Wormald has told the Covid inquiry.
The former top Department of Health civil servant said it is “possible” the measures – announced before the eventual lockdown was imposed a week later – could have avoided the need for lockdowns to protect the NHS.
But “we will never know what the effect of the March 16 package would have been,” Sir Christopher said.
Mr Johnson’s announcement included measures such as working from home where possible, stopping non-essential contact and avoiding pubs, clubs, theatres and other such social venues. But it was not a strict lockdown.
Full report: Hancock ‘wanted to decide who should live and who should die during Covid'
Our political correspondent Archie Mitchell has the full report on ex-NHS chief executive Lord Simon Stevens’ claim that Matt Hancock wanted to decide which patients should live or die if hospitals became overwhelmed:
Hancock wanted to decide who should live and who should die – former NHS boss
Dominic Cummings asked whether the true problem was him ‘calling Hancock “a lying c*** killing people’” or ‘Hancock actually being a lying c*** killing people’
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments