
Hancock: Moving patients from hospitals to care homes was least-worst decision
The inquiry has previously heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a 'generational slaughter within care homes'.
Appearing before the inquiry on Wednesday, Mr Hancock acknowledged the discharge policy was an 'incredibly contentious issue', but he added: 'Nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.'
When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed.
However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April.
This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus.
Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times.
Returning for a full-day session to face questions specifically about the care sector, he said the hospital discharge policy had been a government decision but had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens.
Mr Hancock said: 'It was formally a government decision. It was signed off by the prime minister. It was really driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, but it was widely discussed.'
The inquiry heard Mr Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had 'insisted' on the policy, and while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary.
He said it was an 'incredibly contentious issue' but added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives'.
He said there were no good options, adding: 'It's the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.'
Pressed further, he said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time.
The High Court ruled in 2022 that Government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were 'unlawful'.
While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients 'to preserve the capacity of the NHS', they found it was 'irrational' for the Government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission.
Asked about March 17, 2020 when NHS bosses were instructed to begin the discharge process, Mr Hancock said officials were 'pushing very hard' to get more PPE into care homes. He said not advising care homes to isolate returning residents without symptoms was a 'mistake', but it was in line with clinical guidance at the time.
In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Mr Hancock admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue.
At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.'
Mr Hancock told the inquiry: 'I would stress in that piece of rhetoric, what I said is that we had 'tried' – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted.'
He added: 'The protection, what at the time, was clearly not as much as we would have liked, but the alternatives were even worse.
'We were trying to put as much protection in place as possible.
'All I can do is take you back to the actual decisions and the resources that we had at that moment.
He went on: 'We were trying to do everything that we possibly could, we were in bleak circumstances.'
Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC highlighted anonymous evidence given to the inquiry, saying: 'One person in particular said he (Mr Hancock) blatantly lied about the situation with care homes, there was no blanket of protection. We were left to sail our own ships. He wasn't heartfelt. He had no understanding or appreciation of the challenges care homes face, pandemic or not, it felt like we were the sacrifice, a cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society.'
Mr Hancock said it was 'not helpful' for the inquiry to 'exchange brickbats', but went on: 'I've been through everything that we did as a Department, a big team effort, and we were all pulling as hard as we possibly could to save lives – that's what I meant by saying that we tried to throw a protective ring around.
'Of course, it wasn't perfect. It was impossible – it was an unprecedented pandemic, and the context was exceptionally difficult.
'What I care about is the substance of what we did, the protections that we put in place, and most importantly, what we can do in the future to ensure that the options available are better than they were last time.'
Bereaved families have previously called this 'protective ring' phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'.
Nicola Brook, a solicitor representing more than 7,000 families from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (CBFFJ), said Mr Hancock's claim that the discharge policy had been the least-worst decision available was 'an insult to the memory of each and every person who died'.
She added: 'He knew at the time that many care homes did not have the ability to isolate the people who would be discharged from hospital and that Covid was airborne.
'It's frankly ridiculous and insulting that he says they tried to throw a protective ring around care homes when his department's policies caused Covid to spread like wildfire amongst society's most vulnerable loved ones.
'Mr Hancock claims the decision to discharge people into care homes was driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, yet the inquiry is not calling him. We would call for this decision to be urgently reviewed.'
The CBFFJ group had already written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson.
Outlining the state of the adult social care sector at the outbreak of the pandemic, Mr Hancock said it 'was badly in need of, and remains badly in need of, reform', but rejected the suggestion of it being a 'Cinderella service to the NHS'.
He said pandemic contingency plans, prepared by local authorities for adult social care, had been 'as good as useless' at the time, and described a 'hodge podge of accountability' between local councils and Government departments.
He claimed the situation has 'got worse not better' for care homes in the event of another pandemic hitting, and suggested a series of recommendations, including having isolation facilities in care homes and ensuring a stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE).
Module six of the inquiry is focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK.
Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Urgent Mounjaro warning: Common mistake puts patients at risk of deadly organ damage, expert says
A nurse has warned thousands of patients using the weight loss jab Mounjaro could be at risk of deadly organ failure, because GPs are failing to carry out a vital test. Dubbed the 'King Kong' of weight loss injections, Mounjaro can now be prescribed by NHS GPs in a bid to tackle the ongoing obesity crisis. But the injections often come with side effects ranging from severe dehydration, nausea and even life-threatening pancreatitis––which health professionals say could be avoided with a simple blood test. Rachel Joy, nurse and chief clinical officer at SheMed, a private healthcare provider, said: 'The safest way for people to use these jabs is through mandatory blood screening.' She continued: 'These blood tests help identify any underlying health issues that need to be managed before a patient starts the programme, or if the treatment is entirely unsuitable.' Blood tests can test for liver function, thyroid problems, uncontrolled pre-diabetes and high levels of harmful fats called triglycerides in the blood. These lipids come from foods, including butter, oil and other fats. While a certain level of these fats is essential for good health, high levels can raise the risk of heart disease. Ms Joy warned: 'If someone has really high triglycerides, they may be at higher risk of pancreatitis.' Pancreatitis is the inflammation of the pancreas, a gland located behind the stomach which is used in digestion and blood sugar regulation. While there is a high survival rate for this condition, it can trigger organ failure—which can be fatal. In some cases of severe acute pancreatitis, the pancreas can lose its blood supply and turn necrotic, which can cause deadly sepsis (a blood infection), which can in turn make other major organs fail. Severe acute pancreatitis can also trigger a systemic inflammatory response which causes other organs—like the lungs and kidneys—to fail. Ms Joy continued: 'People who have uncontrolled diabetes are also at an increased risk of becoming severely dehydrated which can be really serious. 'Without a blood test, this could be missed,' she added. Officials are now examining whether jab users affected by pancreatitis have a genetic trait that leaves them at greater risk of side-effects, which Ms Joy said could also be flagged by a simple blood test. 'Sometimes these things are subtle, but can have a massive impact. 'We should be putting these patients at the centre and treating obesity like any other clinical health condition.' She is now urging healthcare officials to reconsider rolling out these jabs without strict guidelines in place, as GPs struggle under time-constraints. As such, SheMed have made blood tests a mandatory part of their programme before prescribing the revolutionary jab. Last month, the UK medicines regulator launched a probe into the safety of fat jabs after hundreds of users developed pancreatitis, leaving ten dead. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said it has received more than 560 reports of people developing an inflamed pancreas after taking so-called 'GLP-1' injections since they were first launched. The MHRA is now calling for users who are admitted to hospital with pancreatitis to report the side effect to authorities using the regulator's Yellow Card scheme. Healthcare workers can also submit a report on patients' behalf. This involves providing further information and submitting a saliva sample which will be used to explore whether some people are at a higher risk of acute pancreatitis when taking these medicines due to their genetic makeup. Researchers hope this will ultimately enable doctors to use rapid genetic screening tests before prescribing drugs to make the process safer. Side effects continue to be a significant burden on the NHS and studies have shown they account for one in six hospital admissions. The main symptom of pancreatitis is severe pain in the stomach that radiates to the back and does not go away. Anyone who experiences this should seek immediate medical help. Dr Alison Cave, MHRA's chief safety officer, said: 'Evidence shows that almost a third of side effects to medicines could be prevented with the introduction of genetic testing.' It is predicted that adverse drug reactions could cost the NHS more than £2.2 billion a year in hospital stays alone she added. These blockbuster jabs have also been credited with lowering blood sugar levels for people with type 2 diabetes, but Ms Joy warned they are not a silver bullet and can come with a number of serious side effects. Recent estimates suggest that about 1.5 million people in the UK are taking weight loss jabs, many of which are bought privately due to NHS rationing. Most side effects linked to the jabs are gastrointestinal including nausea, constipation and diarrhoea. However Ms Joy warned that Mounjaro can also cause severe dehydration, especially in people with diabetes. It typically causes headaches and dizziness but if not treated quickly can even lead to seizures, kidney failure or prove fatal. There have been further reactions and deaths linked to other side-effects following the use of GLP-1 medicines. The MHRA stresses that it has not been established that the jabs caused the illnesses, but that the patients themselves have reported them as side effects. Professor Matt Brown, chief scientific officer of Genomics England, said: 'GLP-1 medicines like Ozempic and Wegovy have been making headlines, but like all medicines there can be a risk of serious side effects. 'We believe there is real potential to minimise these with many adverse reactions having a genetic cause. 'This next step in our partnership with the MHRA will generate data and evidence for safer and more effective treatment through more personalised approaches to prescription, supporting a shift towards an increasingly prevention-focused healthcare system.'


Daily Record
38 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Hot weather warning as painful symptom in the arm could require 999 call
The NHS has guidance about a lesser-known symptom of heat stroke to watch out for Brits are being urged to stay alert for an unusual arm symptom that could signal a serious health emergency amidst the current heatwave. With the UK weathering another week of high temperatures, it's vital to recognise heat stroke symptoms. The Met Office has revealed that England just experienced its warmest June ever with an average temperature of 16.9C, while Wales recorded its third warmest June since records started in 1884. Certain areas have recently felt the mercury rise to a blistering 34C. In light of these sweltering conditions, awareness of the risks posed by extreme heat is critical. The NHS cautions that heat exhaustion can quickly progress to heatstroke without timely intervention. The health service advises: "Heat exhaustion does not usually need emergency medical help if you can cool down within 30 minutes," but warns, "If it turns into heatstroke, it needs to be treated as an emergency." A less obvious sign of heat exhaustion to watch out for is cramping in the arms and legs, with abdominal cramps also possible. Experts at the Cleveland Clinic in the US warn that such cramps can develop when the body overheats. They explain: "Heat cramps are painful muscle spasms that happen when your body gets too hot." These spasms are seen as a mild form of heat-related illness and an early indicator of heat exhaustion. The experts warned: "When you sweat a lot, your body loses salt and nutrients (electrolytes) in the sweat. Drinking large amounts of water quickly helps hydrate you, but it also dilutes the nutrients in your body. That can cause your muscles to tighten and cramp." Other indicators of heat exhaustion can include: Tiredness Dizziness Headache Feeling sick or being sick Excessive sweating and skin becoming pale and clammy or getting a heat rash, but a change in skin colour can be harder to see on brown and black skin Fast breathing or heartbeat A high temperature Being very thirsty Weakness The NHS has stated: "The symptoms of heat exhaustion are often the same in adults and children, although children may become irritable too." How to act if someone has heat exhaustion In the event that someone exhibits signs of heat exhaustion, it's crucial to cool them down and ensure they're hydrated. The NHS advises taking these four steps: Move them to a cool place Remove all unnecessary clothing like a jacket or socks Get them to drink a sports or rehydration drink, or cool water Cool their skin – spray or sponge them with cool water and fan them. Cold packs, wrapped in a cloth and put under the armpits or on the neck are good too It's important to remain with the person until they recover, which should happen within 30 minutes. The NHS further instructs that if you or someone else shows signs of heatstroke, you should call 999 or head to A&E. These are: Still feeling unwell after 30 minutes of resting in a cool place, being cooled and drinking fluids A very high temperature Hot skin that's not sweating and might look red (this can be harder to see on brown and black skin) A fast heartbeat Fast breathing or shortness of breath Confusion and lack of coordination A seizure or fit Loss of consciousness If the patient loses consciousness while you're awaiting assistance, it's advised to place them in the recovery position.


Sky News
38 minutes ago
- Sky News
Chancellor Rachel Reeves addresses tearful PMQs, saying 'When I'm having a tough day, it's on the telly'
The chancellor has said she was having a "tough day" yesterday in her first public comments since appearing tearful at Prime Minister's Questions. Rachel Reeves told broadcasters: "Clearly I was upset yesterday and everyone could see that. It was a personal issue and I'm not going to go into the details of that. "My job as chancellor at 12 o'clock on a Wednesday is to be at PMQs next to the prime minister, supporting the government, and that's what I tried to do. "I guess the thing that maybe is a bit different between my job and many of your viewers' is that when I'm having a tough day it's on the telly and most people don't have to deal with that." She declined to give a reason behind the tears, saying "it was a personal issue" and "it wouldn't be right" to divulge it. "People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday. Today's a new day and I'm just cracking on with the job," she added. The chancellor's comments come after the prime minister told Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby that he "didn't appreciate" that she was crying behind him at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday because the weekly sessions are "pretty wild", which is why he did not offer her any support while in the chamber. He added: "It wasn't just yesterday - no prime minister ever has had side conversations during PMQs. It does happen in other debates when there's a bit more time, but in PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang. That's what it was yesterday. "And therefore, I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber, and that's just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation." 1:03 Please refresh the page for the fullest version.