Latest news with #SimonStevens
Telegraph
06-07-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
How ‘net zero stupidity' inspired an NHS spending spree
When Sir Simon Stevens unveiled plans for the NHS to become the first healthcare system in the world to hit net zero, the former NHS chief made 'no apologies' for setting the target during Covid. In his words, putting the health service at the forefront of the fight against climate change was vital in tackling the 'most profound long-term threat to the health of the nation'. The NHS has set an ambition to reach net zero emissions from its own activities by 2040 – 10 years ahead of the national target. However, this 'world-leading' objective is now under increasing scrutiny as the NHS faces the biggest crisis in its 75-year history, with more than 7m people stuck on waiting lists and financial pressures mounting. It is not only hospitals and GP surgeries that have been set stretching targets. Suppliers of medicines and medical equipment will also have to hit net zero by 2045 if they want to keep working with the health service. Crucially, the rules will also force all NHS suppliers to publicly report their emissions by 2027, excluding them from bidding for contracts if they fail to make progress on net zero by the end of the decade. Such bold goals are now becoming a target for politicians on the Right, who fear it is adding unnecessary strain on the beleaguered health service. Zia Yusuf, the former chairman of Reform UK, made the point in a damning social media post last month, as he advanced the party's pledge to scrap a target to hit net zero by 2050. 'Instead of prioritising the record waiting lists or the tens of thousands who wait more than three days in A&E each year, the Westminster elite decided the NHS should achieve net zero by 2040 and for NHS suppliers by 2045,' he said. 'All these insane rules result in taxpayers endlessly forced to put more into the NHS and yet struggle to see a doctor.' Underpinning the argument are concerns that strict net zero targets will increase costs for the 80,000 suppliers that work with the NHS, pushing up a procurement bill already at £27bn a year. The timing of the debate is also key, coming just days after the Labour Government announced its 10-year plan to reform the NHS. Despite growing strain on the public finances, Sir Keir Starmer has demanded that every part of the country must offer access to care six days a week in what he promised was 'one of the most seismic shifts in care in the history of the health service'. Edward Argar, the shadow health secretary, says this planned and costly overhaul makes it even more important to avoid distractions such as net zero. He says: 'The NHS needs to be focusing its energy and its funding first and foremost on what makes a direct difference for patients, what will improve the quality of their care, and what will improve their access to it.' Chris Naylor, a senior fellow at the King's Fund charity, argues that the strict climate targets will help businesses that work with the NHS to plan ahead and prepare for the future. 'What suppliers for the NHS often say is, 'We just want to know what it is we're going to be required to do and to be given some notice of that,'' he says. 'I think this supplier roadmap does that.' Yet even he admits that the impact on smaller suppliers could be disproportionate. 'I do think it's really important that support is available to them around stuff like carbon measurement,' he says. According to a recent report from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), only 15pc of small firms have measured their carbon footprint, posing a significant challenge for many suppliers if they want to compete for NHS contracts in future. Of the small businesses that have been asked to measure their emissions by the Government, only 35pc were able to do so. This highlights the growing risks associated with embracing decarbonisation too quickly, even if the NHS argues some of its net zero plans will help save money. A spokesman points to a planned £59m of savings in travel and transport, which they say will be reinvested into patient care. Yet such small savings will do little to help win the argument against net zero sceptics, particularly as more hospitals lose money and battle high waiting lists. Research published earlier this year by the think tank Nuffield Trust found that 55pc of NHS trusts had a deficit in 2023-24, an increase from 48pc in 2022-23. Despite the growing financial constraints, NHS trusts are also pushing their own sustainability drive, with one London hospital trust launching a contract to decarbonise its hospitals. Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust has asked energy companies to pitch green power systems for one of its central London hospitals, with the potential to expand the work across other public sector buildings. Richard Tice, the energy spokesman for Reform, claimed to have found examples of unnecessary NHS green spending in his own constituency of Boston and Skegness. He took aim at a new £42m, 19-bed mental health unit in Boston, Lincolnshire, that will be entirely carbon-neutral, arguing its focus on net zero would take away from other resources the NHS needs. 'That means that other facilities are denied, whether it's extra staff, whether it's extra medicines, whether it's another facility, a bigger A&E,' Tice said. The Pilgrim hospital in Boston has been awarded £23m to upgrade its energy infrastructure, including making its heating system net zero-compliant. Tice said the NHS was wasting millions on 'net zero stupidity' in Boston, adding: 'It's the patients who suffer because the money spent on this means it can't be spent on patient care.' Mark Platts, chief finance officer at Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, said: 'In line with all new NHS buildings, the unit will meet high national standards of sustainability and the NHS commitment to net zero. Doing so will also help reduce our energy costs in the future, which can be reinvested in clinical care.' Tice isn't the only person concerned about unnecessary costs. Last month, Sir Jim Mackey, the head of the NHS, said the health service was too often 'deaf' to criticism and 'wasted a lot of money'. In recent years the NHS has become increasingly reliant on the costly services of US tech giants such as Palantir and Larry Ellison's Oracle. Mackey's comments came as he warned that failing to listen to public frustration could mean the end of a publicly funded state health service. Indeed, while Reform has said that the NHS should remain free at the point of use, Nigel Farage has previously called on its funding model to be re-examined. 'Everyone knows we are not getting value, let's re-examine the whole funding model and find a way that's more efficient,' he told the BBC in March. Meanwhile, questions remain over how achievable the NHS's net zero ambitions really are. Nick Watts, the founding chief sustainability officer of the NHS, told the New Statesman last year that there was a '50-50' chance that it would reach the 2040 target. Lord Mackinlay, former chairman of the net zero scrutiny group, says net zero spending adds to growing scrutiny of just how much cash is being sucked up by the health services. 'The NHS one is very serious because it's an institution that absorbs money like it's going out of fashion,' he says. 'It is a very, very hungry beast and it's not doing the stuff which is customer-focused.' A Government spokesman said: 'We are helping hospitals across the country save hundreds of millions on their energy bills so they can reinvest those savings into frontline services. 'Thanks to this Government's investments, money that is currently being wasted in high energy bills will be redirected to patients and services - we are providing over £1bn of funding over three years to fund hundreds of local energy schemes to decarbonise public buildings and help them access clean, affordable power.'
Sky News
02-07-2025
- Health
- Sky News
Matt Hancock accused of insulting 'memory of every COVID victim' over inquiry comments
Former health secretary Matt Hancock has been accused of insulting the "memory of each and every person who died" over his description of the way patients were discharged into care homes during the COVID pandemic. Speaking at the inquiry into the government's handling of the crisis, Mr Hancock said discharging patients from hospitals to care homes in the early stages of the pandemic was "the least-worst decision" at the time. "It was formally a government decision," he added. "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. "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. But there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested for COVID before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April - despite growing awareness of the risks of people without symptoms spreading 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". Nicola Brook, a solicitor for more than 7,000 families from COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, said Mr Hancock's claim that the 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." No apology or empathy from Hancock Matt Hancock has given evidence to the COVID inquiry many times before. He has been accused of being combative, bullish and insensitive. Wednesday's appearance will do nothing to diminish that criticism. This module deals specifically with care homes. The government's decision to allow mostly untested patients into care homes with their population of elderly, vulnerable residents is widely seen as its most controversial move during the health emergency. It resulted in the deaths of thousands of care home residents. At the time, addressing the country during a Downing Street press conference, Mr Hancock said a protective ring had been thrown around care homes. When challenged on that statement today, the former health secretary said it was "rhetoric". He had tried, he said. But it was impossible. Mr Hancock told the inquiry it was not his decision but a collective one that he was charged with enforcing. He stressed several times it was the "least worst option" because if he had not acted to create capacity in hospitals by transferring patients, the NHS would have been overwhelmed. When challenged with evidence presented to the inquiry that Mr Hancock "lied about the situation" and he had left older people to be "culled" because they could no longer contribute to society, Mr Hancock simply countered by saying he had had people in touch at the time thanking him for his efforts. And this was said to an inquiry room where people who had lost loved ones in care homes sat barely a few feet away. No contrition. No apology. No empathy. 'We were in bleak circumstances' Mr Hancock, who offered no apology at the inquiry, became health secretary in 2018. He resigned from the Conservative government in 2021 after admitting to breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague. He added: "We were trying to do everything that we possibly could, we were in bleak circumstances." 4:59 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. A civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the figure as a "generational slaughter within care homes". 'Would my dad still be alive?' Sharon Cook, whose parents were living in a care home when the pandemic struck, said there was a "lot of confusion" about the guidance at the time. She told Sky News her mother tested positive for COVID and died three days later. She was allowed into the care home to tell her father, who had dementia, but after one visit, she was prevented from returning. A week later, her father died and when she went to the care home, she was told they had not attempted to resuscitate him. When she asked why, they showed her a DNAR (Do Not Attempt Resuscitation) form, which, they said, "had been in consultation with me". "If they'd been using the proper form, a more up-to-date form, I would have had to countersign," she said. "So I would have seen that, and then I could have exercised his right to have a second opinion. "So I'll never know if he would have survived, or not, but there was certainly a lot of confusion around care homes at the time that the guidance was being given. "And when I went back three months later to discuss what had happened, they actually said, 'oh, our mistake, we should have actually let you in. "If I'd been let in, would my dad still be with me? I don't know."
Leader Live
02-07-2025
- Health
- Leader Live
Hancock: Moving patients from hospitals to care homes was least-worst decision
Bereaved people whose loved ones died in care homes have urged truth and accountability from those appearing before the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, as its focus for the next month falls on the care sector. 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.
South Wales Guardian
02-07-2025
- Health
- South Wales Guardian
Hancock: Moving patients from hospitals to care homes was least-worst decision
Bereaved people whose loved ones died in care homes have urged truth and accountability from those appearing before the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, as its focus for the next month falls on the care sector. 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.
Glasgow Times
02-07-2025
- Health
- Glasgow Times
Hancock: Moving patients from hospitals to care homes was least-worst decision
Bereaved people whose loved ones died in care homes have urged truth and accountability from those appearing before the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, as its focus for the next month falls on the care sector. 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. The latest module is focusing on the adult social care sector (Alamy/PA) 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'. Matt Hancock has given evidence to the inquiry on several occasions (Covid/PA) 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.
