Inquiry hears of older people ‘cull' as Matt Hancock defends care home policies
There were tense exchanges as the former health secretary returned to give evidence to the wide-ranging probe, this time focused on the adult social care sector.
Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting to breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, responded to an accusation he had 'blatantly lied about the situation with care homes'.
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.'
Bereaved families have previously called the phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'.
The inquiry has 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'.
On Wednesday, remarks were read to the inquiry from an anonymous witness, who accused Mr Hancock of not being heartfelt or having a proper understanding of the situation care homes were in during the pandemic.
Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC, who gave no further information on the person's identity or their role, said: '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 he felt it was 'not helpful' for the inquiry to 'exchange brickbats' – a term used to describe a verbal attack.
He added: '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.'
He said the emphasis was on ''tried' – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted'.
He added that he and others were 'trying to do everything that we possibly could' in 'bleak circumstances' at a time when 'I also had (former government adviser) Dominic Cummings and a load of people causing all sorts of problems for me, and I had Covid'.
Elsewhere in his evidence, Mr Hancock – who said one of his own relatives died in a care home but did not give further details – acknowledged the policy around discharging patients from hospital into care homes early in the pandemic was an 'incredibly contentious issue'.
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.
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 the policy, Mr Hancock 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.
He added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.'
He said while the policy had been a government decision, it had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens.
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.
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 (personal protective equipment) 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.
Mr Hancock's statement, referred to during Wednesday's hearing, said while there had been 'widespread concern' that patients being discharged from hospital were the main source of infection in care homes, 'we learned in the summer of 2020 that staff movement between care homes was the main source of transmission'.
He told the inquiry he had wanted to bring in a ban on staff movement between care homes but that being unable to secure funding from the Treasury to compensate affected workers was a 'killer blocker' so it did not happen.
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'.
The CBFFJ group has 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 and Lord Stevens.
When asked about when visits to care homes were banned, which led to some people unable to be with their loved ones when they died, Mr Hancock said: 'Some of the things people went through are truly ghastly.'
He said while visiting restrictions 'are a reasonable measure', there should be more 'nuance' in future.
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).
Hearings for module six of the inquiry, focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK, 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
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
I'm a 'hard enough b*****d' to lead the country... despite collapsing under pressure to own MPs over benefit cuts
Keir Starmer has insisted he is a 'hard-enough bastard' to lead the country – despite capitulating to his own MPs over benefit cuts. In a bizarre aside, the Prime Minister pushed back against suggestions that recent U-turns have wrecked his political authority. Asked whether he was tough enough to drive through change following a series of reverses, he told the BBC 's Political Thinking podcast that he was 'proud' of his record in government. 'We need to reflect on where things have not gone according to plan, and the Welfare Bill was one of them,' he said. 'But we also need to emphasise the very many good things we have done.' The Arsenal fan denied that he had 'lost the [Labour] dressing room'. And when podcast host Nick Robinson revealed that a former football team-mate had described Sir Keir as a 'hard bastard', the PM responded: 'I'm a hard-enough bastard to find out who said that so I can have a discussion with them.' His comments echoed Ed Miliband's much-mocked bravado in 2015 when he responded to questions about his suitability for power by declaring: 'Hell, yes, I'm tough enough.' Downing Street declined to comment further on Sir Keir's words yesterday, but insisted the PM was not a 'pushover' despite caving in to pressure to make huge U-turns on welfare cuts, the winter fuel payment and grooming gangs in recent weeks. Sir Keir did acknowledge an array of blunders, saying caving into Labour rebels on welfare was a 'tough day' and that he regretted a speech warning that uncontrolled immigration could turn Britain into an 'island of strangers'. The PM tried to make a virtue out of U-turns on issues such as the national inquiry into grooming gangs, arguing it was 'common sense' to 'look again' when doubts were raised. 'I'm not one of these ideological thinkers, where ideology dictates what I do,' said. 'I'm a pragmatist. You can badge these things as U-turns – it's common sense to me. If someone says to me, 'here's some more information and I really think it's the right thing to do', I'm the kind of person that says, 'well, in which case, let's do it'.' In a message to Labour MPs, Sir Keir said the Government needed to 'emphasise the many good things we have done'. 'We're only just starting. This in a sense is the toughest year, so we're only just beginning,' he said, adding that he did not 'pretend' that the Labour revolt this week which forced him to neuter his benefit curbs was not a 'tough day'. 'I take responsibility,' he said. 'We didn't get the process right.' But he insisted the Government had 'done some fantastic things' and 'driven through so much change'. The PM said that included bringing down waiting lists in the NHS, as well as 'loads of improvements in schools and stuff that we can do for children'. Sir Keir went on: 'Whether that's rolling out school uniform projects, whether it's school meals, breakfast clubs, you name it – and also [bringing in] a huge amount of investment into the country. 'And of course we've been busy getting three trade deals.' When our political leaders try to 'talk tough' 'Am I tough enough? Hell, yes, I'm tough enough.' Ed Miliband, March 2015, on whether he was tough enough to be PM. 'You worked so hard, you didn't feel you'd drunk ten pints by four o'clock, you used to sweat so much.' William Hague, August 2000, boasting he drank 14 pints a day as a teenage delivery worker. 'I am a fighter, not a quitter.' Liz Truss, October 22, the day before she resigned as Prime Minister. 'I have to confess, when me and my friend, sort of, used to run through the fields of wheat – the farmers weren't too pleased about that.' Theresa May, June 2017, on the naughtiest thing she had done.
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Hard man fantasy of a PM losing control
Mad Frankie Fraser, Iron Mike Tyson, Ronnie and Reggie Kray. To this list of notorious tough guys, we must now add Keir Starmer – a streetfighter straight outta Reigate. The genteel Surrey suburbs might not seem a natural breeding ground for bruisers, but friends say the PM's upbringing belies the inner beast. 'He's a hard bastard,' they tell the BBC 's Nick Robinson. Sir Keir humbly agrees. 'A hard enough bastard,' he says. Really? Is he even the hardest member of Cabinet? It would be a brave punter who backed him over three rounds against Angela Rayner, or indeed in an alley fight with his gimlet-eyed enforcer Pat McFadden. All this nonsense is, of course, designed to make Sir Keir out to be a strong and macho leader. In truth, it makes him look silly and desperate. On his first anniversary in power, he appears weaker and more out of touch than ever. A survey this week shows one in three people who voted Labour 12 months ago now regret it. The big surprise is that it's only one in three. The backbench rebellion which shredded his welfare reforms and had his Chancellor sobbing in the Commons was his greatest humiliation. But there have been many other errors, U-turns and betrayals of his manifesto promises. No one voted for a £40 billion tax raid, the scrapping of winter fuel allowance, releasing thousands of dangerous prisoners early or the outrageous surrender of the Chagos Islands. His boast that he would 'smash the gangs' trafficking migrants across the Channel has been an ignominious failure, the growth he promised has flatlined and borrowing has soared. The only people to have really benefited from Starmer's first year are the public-sector unions, whose members have received bumper pay rises and a new workers' charter, which places a raft of stifling obligations on hard-pressed employers. And what are the omens for Sir Keir's second year (assuming he survives it)? For anyone with savings, property, a pension fund, a small business, it threatens to be far worse than his first. He has lost control of his parliamentary party and with it any chance of cutting back the ballooning state. Indeed, his newly empowered MPs, most of whom have never had a job outside politics, charities or the public sector, are likely to demand even higher public spending. For example, they will no doubt push for lifting the two-child benefit cap, which would be a huge payday for those with large families but cost upwards of £3.5 billion – more money we don't have. The only way to pay for this ever-growing financial black hole is for our lame-duck Chancellor to raise yet more tax. As usual, the burden will fall on the hard-pressed families of middle Britain. It would be a betrayal of Labour's central manifesto promise but, as we have learned in this year, Sir Keir is not a man of principle. He may think of himself as a hard man, but he's deluding himself. Every time there has been a genuinely tough decision to be made – on welfare, the grooming gangs inquiry, winter fuel allowance and much else – he's buckled. His fellow tough guy Mike Tyson famously said: 'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.' This is effectively what's happened to Sir Keir. If he ever had a plan, it's in tatters. And the country will pay the price.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Public sector bigger than before Covid under SNP
Scotland's public sector will remain more bloated than it was before the pandemic even if SNP ministers hit a target requiring some departments to cut one in eight jobs, experts have warned. IPPR Scotland, a think tank, said a promise to protect and in some cases expand frontline roles while finding overall staffing reductions of 0.5 per cent by 2030 would mean exposed departments have to slash 20,000 posts to plug a projected spending gap approaching £5 billion. However, even if the target is met this would 'not undo the increases in devolved public services since 2019', according to separate analysis published by the Fraser of Allander Institute, based at the University of Strathclyde. The institute's independent economists also downgraded their growth forecasts for the Scottish economy and predicted 0.8 per cent growth this year, and just 1 per cent in 2026. This is despite ministers claiming Scotland is a 'modern, high-growth country', an assertion the IPPR analysis said 'might be generously described as optimistic'. Before Holyrood went into recess for the summer, the finance secretary, Shona Robison, outlined the need to tackle a £2.6 billion shortfall in day-to-day resource spending and £2.1 billion deficit on capital projects, which she blamed on 'Westminster austerity'. However, critics lambasted the SNP for 'years of gross financial incompetence', with a significant proportion of the black hole explained by the creation of more generous devolved welfare payments and a ballooning and increasingly well-paid public sector. The wage bill for the devolved public sector is close to £30 billion, which is about 55 per cent of the block grant funding from Westminster. Public sector pay is projected to reach £32 billion by 2029-30 even if the overall workforce shrinks. The Fraser of Allander Institute said that although some of the increases in staffing were accounted for by the creation of Social Security Scotland to administer new devolved welfare payments, this did not account for most of the rapid expansion. 'It's laughable for SNP ministers to claim Scotland is a high-growth country based on the facts,' the Scottish Tory MSP Craig Hoy said. 'The reality is we're a high-tax, low-growth nation as a direct result of their policies. 'The nationalists' addiction to a bloated, inefficient public sector is the reason nobody has faith in their ability to make the cuts needed to plug the huge black hole they have created in Scotland's finances.' Hoy added: 'Their failure to fully pass on the rates relief available to businesses south of the border, coupled with them making Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK, explains why the growth rate here is even lower than the anaemic rate Keir Starmer is presiding over.' There were about 590,000 public sector workers in Scotland in 2024, representing 22 per cent of the workforce. The proportion is lower than in Northern Ireland and Wales but far higher than in England, where 17 per cent of workers are employed by the state. The size of the public sector workforce in Scotland grew by 11 per cent between 2017 and last year, with average public sector pay almost 5 per cent higher than the UK as a whole. Robison said last week that reducing overall staff numbers by 0.5 per cent, largely through 'natural attrition and recruitment controls', could lead to £700 million of savings. Compulsory redundancies, she said, could be used as a 'last resort', reversing a long-standing ban. A 0.5 per cent reduction in the 550,000 workers for devolved functions would mean 11,000 full-time jobs being cut. However, the IPPR said that as frontline jobs, which account for the vast majority of roles, were being protected, the axe would fall heavily on those that were not. 'Taken together, that would mean the rest of the devolved public sector facing staffing cuts of around 3 to 3.5 per cent per year or a drop of about 13 per cent by 2029-30,' a blog co-authored by IPPR Scotland director Stephen Boyd said. 'That amounts to around 20,000 jobs. 'Can the public-sector backroom bear cuts of that scale? Does the distinction between frontline and backroom make any sense? Are there really thousands of backroom public-sector roles that can be replaced by technology over the next four years? 'The Scottish government risks finding out that the answers to these questions are unlikely to be the ones they need to achieve a pain-free balancing of the budget.' Ivan McKee, the public finance minister, said: 'It is clearer than ever that Scotland's economy is being impacted by challenging global trading conditions and uncertainty, conditions mirrored across the rest of the UK.' McKee added: 'We are taking ambitious steps to grow the economy by pursuing new investment, building export potential and driving and capitalising on the Scottish innovation at the forefront of many key global industries. 'But we are doing all of this without the full economic powers of independence that are needed to fully address the issues facing Scottish businesses. We need decisive action from the UK government to counter the damaging economic impacts of Brexit and business uncertainty. This includes reversing its decision to increase employers' national insurance contributions which, as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce has highlighted, is severely damaging business confidence, investment, growth and jobs. 'As set out by the finance secretary last week, savings rising to £2.6 billion in 2029-30 will ensure funding can be targeted at frontline services such as the NHS, social security, action to eradicate child poverty and other priorities. This includes our commitment to reduce annualised Scottish government and public bodies' corporate costs by 20 per cent over the next five years.'
