Covid inquiry live: Hancock ‘wanted to decide who should live or die if NHS became overwhelmed’
Lord Simon Stevens says Cabinet ministers ‘avoided’ Cobra meetings chaired by then-health secretary
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.Ex-health secretary Matt Hancock believed that he – rather than doctors or the public – should decide “who should live and who should die” if hospitals became overwhelmed with Covid patients, the former NHS chief executive has said.
Lord Simon Stevens said that “fortunately this horrible dilemma never crystallised”, as he told the Covid inquiry on Thursday that it would have to look “very carefully” at the issue of asymptomatic Covid patients being discharged from hospitals into care homes.
Meanwhile, Mr Hancock, who was health secretary at the start of the Covid outbreak, told Public Health England’s then medical director Yvonne Doyle “not to patronise him” when she warned that the virus could be in the UK, she told the inquiry.
She said she was barred from doing media interviews for a time after that, and apologised to him, even though she had been telling the truth.
It comes a day after former top civil servant and ethics chief Helen MacNamara said the “female perspective” was missed during the pandemic as she condemned a “toxic” and “macho” culture at the highest levels of Mr Johnson’s government.
Matt Hancock wanted to decide who should live and who should die during Covid – former NHS boss
An unhappy struggle between panto and principle: the Covid inquiry’s winners and losers so far
Matt Hancock told Public Health England director ‘not to patronise him’
Boris Johnson’s No 10 was toxic, sexist and devoid of humanity, says former top civil servant
Covid regulations confused public and the police, says Patel
Priti Patel has said the Covid regulations were confusing to both the public and the police.
Asked by Covid inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC if she accepted that there was a “high degree of confusion” about the rules – both in following them and enforcing them – Ms Patel said: “I would agree, I would completely agree.”
Ms Patel, asked if the flat fine of £10,000 for those caught breaking lockdown rules around August 2020 was proportionate, said: “No,” adding that it was "very high".
Boris Johnson wanted ‘bigger fines’ for rule-breaking, inquiry hears
A letter to Boris Johnson from his private secretary Imran Shafi in August 2020 shows then-health secretary Matt Hancock, and top scientific advisers, wanted a “more cautious approach”.
The then-prime minister replied by saying the “overriding message” had to be tougher enforcement of the rules and “bigger fines”.
Tech firms ‘enabled terrible things’ during pandemic, says Priti Patel
Former home secretary Priti Patel claims to have had “some very forthright discussions” with tech firms who “enabled all sorts of terrible things on the web” during the pandemic.
Dame Priti told the inquiry: “Throughout the pandemic, it is fair to say that I had some very forthright discussions with technology companies about their own responsibilities – to data-sharing, closing down platforms that effectively promoted, facilitated and enabled all sorts of terrible things on the web, which could also compel and entice children to be on those sites.
“I remember having a specific discussion with technology companies – I think the National Crime Agency were involved as well – because we saw a surge in activity online, almost the inevitability of lockdown.
“With that of course, perpetrators are spending more time online. The dark web in particular is a dreadful place for just terrible activity. But we found that some of the third-party organisations we would work with, for example the Internet Watch Foundation and others, they themselves were affected by the pandemic, so they were not in the office.
Many of their people and professionals that would monitor images that could then go to law enforcement were suffering from Covid. So there were all sorts of wider practical considerations that we had to consider working with law enforcement and with these partners as to how we could tackle this wider scourge in society.”
Just £27m allocated to domestic abuse charities after first lockdown announced
Just £27m of £750m announced for frontline charities in the wake of the first lockdown was allocated towards domestic abuse charities, former home secretary Dame Priti Patel’s evidence shows.
Of that, £15m was given to the Ministry of Justice for police and crime commissioners to allocate to domestic abuse charities, £10 was given to the Ministry for Local Government for domestic abuse accommodation, and £2m for the Home Office to give to domestic abuse charities.
System for deciding Covid regulations ‘sub-optimal at every level’, says Patel
Our political correspondent Adam Forrest reports:
Priti Patel has told the Covid inquiry that the process for deciding Covid regulations were “sub-optimal at every single level”. The former home secretary says it was the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) that come up with the regulations.
Ms Patel said she asked DHSC to give police more time before coming up with the rules, but said the process was “sub-optimal at every single level”, adding that there should be a “totally different system” in future.
Earlier, the ex-home secretary said she accepted there was no effective system in place to stop the Covid infection coming the border.
Asked if the UK lacked the “practical capability to be able to restrict the infection”, she said: “I think that’s absolutely correct and, with that, no technical capability. At that stage the skills and capabilities simply weren’t there.”
Priti Patel ‘not sure colleagues thanked me’ for work on safeguarding children
Former home secretary Dame Priti Patel has told the UK Covid-19 Inquiry that “I’m not sure colleagues in government thanked me” for her work on safeguarding children.
Questioned on whether children and abuse victims were considered as part of debates concerning protecting vulnerable people during lockdown in March 2020, Dame Priti said: “I can’t recall at that particular time, I cannot recall whether or not it was, but I do know that in terms of pressing for a wider definition of vulnerabilities and vulnerable people, I do know children came into it.
“The reason, as I’ve already touched on, is partly because of the work that I was pressing across government.
“I’m not sure my colleagues in government thanked me at the time, particularly around children, county lines, missing children. It’s a major part of our work in the Home Office.”
Priti Patel ‘began planning for hidden lockdown harms on 18 March 2020'
Priti Patel has said that she began having discussions in the Home Office about how vulnerable people could be affected by lockdown on 18 March 2020 – five days before the national shutdown was announced by Boris Johnson.
Asked when thinking about victims of hidden lockdown harms began, the former home secretary told th inquiry: “That was in March, that was in and around the time of lockdown.”
Citing prior ongoing work around domestic abuse and county lines – which inquiry counsel Hugo Keith KC had already told her not to focus on in her response – Ms Patel added: “So we were agile. We were able to work at pace.
“And we were able to start working across the sector with partners as soon as we were effectively locking down. The lockdown on 23 March, when that came, obviously changed [the] engagement dynamic, concentrated on how people were being affected.
“But just in that run-up to lockdown, I think it could have been even around possibly 18 March, around that time, I had already started to have discussions around vulnerable people, vulnerable groups ... that is within the Home Office, this isn’t just across government.”
No ability to prevent Covid arriving in the UK through border control, says Patel
Priti Patel told the inquiry that early in the pandemic there was no ability to prevent coronavirus arriving in the UK through the borders.
Discussing February and March 2020, lead counsel to the inquiry Hugo Keith KC said: “There was a distinct absence of practical capability to be able to restrict the infection through the border and secondly there was no sophisticated or effective system already thought about, drawn up and ready to be put into place when the virus attacked.”
She replied: “I think that’s absolutely correct and, with that, no technical capability.
“At that stage the skills and capabilities simply weren’t there.”
Government’s ‘hands tied’ on border controls, says Priti Patel
Priti Patel has told the inquiry that the government’s “hands were effectively forced” into putting strict border controls in place at the start of the Covid pandemic.
Asked if decisions about restrictions and closures of airports and maritime ports with the Home Office or other departments, she said there was no “straightforward answer” and said some border moves crossed into “public health territory”.
She added: “Our hands were effectively forced really because of Wuhan and what was happening in China and that led to a series of measures.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments