Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock reportedly failed to follow expert advice that anyone entering a care home at the start of the pandemic should be tested for Covid, it has been claimed.

By Christy Cooney www.bbc.co.uk

WhatsApp messages leaked to the Daily Telegraph newspaper suggest Mr Hancock was told in April 2020 there should be “testing of all going into care homes”.

Government guidance later mandated tests only for those leaving hospital.

A spokesperson for Mr Hancock said the leaks offered a “distorted account”.

They added that the messages had been “spun to fit an anti-lockdown agenda” and that the public inquiry into the pandemic was the “proper place for an objective assessment”.

The BBC has not seen or independently verified the WhatsApp messages.

The texts were passed to the Telegraph by journalist Isabel Oakeshott, who has been critical of lockdowns. Ms Oakeshott was given copies of the texts while helping Mr Hancock write his book, Pandemic Diaries.

In one message, dated 14 April, Mr Hancock reportedly told aides that Sir Chris Whitty, the Chief Medial Officer for England, had conducted an “evidence review” and recommended “testing of all going into care homes, and segregation whilst awaiting result”.

The message came a day before the publication of “Covid-19: Our Action Plan for Adult Social Care“, a government document setting out plans to keep the care system functioning during the pandemic.

Mr Hancock said the advice represented a “good positive step” and that “we must put into the doc”, to which an aide responded that he had sent the request “to action”.

But later the same day, Mr Hancock messaged again saying he would rather “leave out” a commitment to test everyone entering care homes from the community and “just commit to test & isolate ALL going into care from hospital”.

“I do not think the community commitment adds anything and it muddies the waters,” he said.

When the care plan was published on 15 April, it said the government would “institute a policy of testing all residents prior to admission to care homes”, but that that would “begin with all those being discharged from hospital”.

It said only that it would “move to” a policy of testing everyone entering care homes from the community.

Guidance stating that tests should be carried out for everyone entering care homes was not introduced until 14 August, the Telegraph reports.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that, from March 2020 to January 2022, there were 43,256 deaths involving Covid-19 in care homes in England.

Of those, more than 17,000 occurred in the four months between Mr Hancock being given the advice and it being implemented.

A spokesperson for Mr Hancock said: “It is outrageous that this distorted account of the pandemic is being pushed with partial leaks, spun to fit an anti-lockdown agenda, which would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives if followed. What the messages do show is a lot of people working hard to save lives.

“The story spun on care homes is completely wrong. What the messages show is that Mr Hancock pushed for testing of those going into care homes when that testing was available.”

The public inquiry into the UK’s handling of the pandemic is now underway and is due to begin hearing evidence in June.

Restaurant group Rockfish has offered £70,000 to buy public toilets on Sidmouth seafront as part of its plans for the town’s derelict Drill Hall.

East Devon Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk 

East Devon District Council (EDDC) chiefs will consider the bid at a meeting on Wednesday, March 1 – with officers recommending it is accepted.

The seafood eatery netted the go-ahead for a £1million bid to transform the Drill Hall in February 2020 but work is yet to start.

A report to EDDC’s Cabinet has revealed the business now wants to purchase a 125-year lease on the loos next-door to the plot on The Esplanade.

It says the move will ‘delay’ the restaurant project, but will ‘result in a much-enhanced’ eatery.

Councillors have been told: “The acquisition by Rockfish would give the opportunity for the toilet block to be incorporated into the refurbishment works at the Drill Hall, enhancing the appearance and offer of the restaurant facility.”

The report to Cabinet adds: “Given the location of these toilets, adjacent to the Drill Hall, it was considered appropriate to discuss their disposal to Rockfish who have recently acquired the Drill Hall site, before considering taking the site to the market.

“Rockfish are able to be considered as a special purchaser and the council is able to negotiate with them directly rather than take the site to the market.

“With this in mind, the council has obtained a market valuation of the site for a long leasehold interest of 125 years, taking into account the requirement to provide two accessible toilet cubicles within the site. The market value was assessed at £65,000.

“The council has now received an offer from Rockfish of £70,000 for a 125-year lease and there is a recommendation that this offer be accepted and heads of terms be entered into.

“Rockfish will need to review their design works for the site and the planning permission prior to commencing works on site.

Angry Lib Dems quit after ‘bringing party into disrepute’

Lewis Clarke www.devonlive.com 

Two Barnstaple town councillors have quit the Liberal Democrats after being accused of bringing the party into disrepute with a former mayor also leaving in solidarity. Councillor Val Monk and Councillor John Carter quit the party last year after not backing the Lib Dem’s choice of mayor, Councillor Louisa York. The town’s former mayor, Councillor Alan Rennles, has also quit the party in support of his colleagues. A former town councillor, Councillor Jane Wilsher, also resigned from the party but died shortly after being sent the letter.

In a letter sent to the three councillors, signed by North Devon Liberal Democrat chair Helen Walker and Barnstaple Town Council Liberal Democrat group leader Ian Roome it stated: “We understand that your actions at Monday’s meeting have placed you in breach of the BTC LD Group standing orders; that your actions might also constitute behaviour likely to ‘bring the party into disrepute’. We also advised that your Liberal Democrats party membership lapsed on November 4 2021, and your Group ‘tithe’ contributions remain outstanding.

“We, therefore, write to advise you that disciplinary procedures outlined in standing orders, a panel will convene shortly to review and investigate your actions and consider your position as a member of the Liberal Democrat town councillor group and your membership of North Devon Liberal Democrats.”

It added that the trio breached group standing orders by ‘disregarding the LD Group’s approved for nominee for the position of mayor, which was decided on February 24 following due process circulated to LD town council members on February 15’.

The letter continued: “At the full town council meeting, you accepted the nomination and second by Cllrs Monk and Wilsher of you to post of mayor, which placed you in direct conflict with the LD Group’s own, approved/selected nominee for this appointment.”

Cllr Monk, a councillor for 28 years, said she could not attend meetings due to being injured. “I was lying on my back, I had been to no meetings, I had no correspondence from the Liberal Democrat committee to say what was happening, and what they were doing regarding mayor choosing,” she said. “One night, I told John I had not been out for twelve months, so I wanted to go to the Barnstaple Town Council meeting, where they chose the mayor.

“Nobody bothered to tell me who they were putting up, so I nominated John. John was happy to go along with that, as was Alan, as they were a bit fed up with the Lib Dems, as am I.

“Jane Wilsher, who is no longer with us, God bless her, was suspended shortly before she passed away, but told them they were too late as she had already resigned from them and cancelled her standing order. What hurt me the most was getting this letter.

“The people of Barnstaple should know why we’ve been suspended because we haven’t got freedom of choice on the council.”

Cllr Rennles added: “Friday, May 13, was my Jubilee ball and the same date Val and John had this letter from the local Liberal Democrats. The letters were damning.

“When you go to mayor-making, the meeting is to define who will be the mayor. As mayor at the time, I know how many people did not vote for Cllr York, and it was not just the three. That’s why they had these letters, and they’re turning around and saying to these people, you’ve got to tow the party line.

“What was going on, I didn’t like, so I quit in October. There is now a ‘then and us’ scenario on the council. I find it upsetting that being the mayor for three years and dealing with this sort of thing, not liking it, and not being able to do anything about it because you’ve got to balance it with being the mayor. I’m not going to add up how many years we’ve been at it here; we’re not short of nearly 100 between us before Jane died.”

Cllr Carter said he could not attend the Liberal Democrats meeting where they selected the mayor before the Barnstaple Town Council meeting. He said: “They want to get rid of the old ones, the ones that know all about planning and finance, and they’ve got a lot of young ones on in the last election, and they sit there like stuffed dummies, who don’t ask questions or raise their hands or nothing. Some councillors I don’t ever see at meetings. When you’re on the council, you’re supposed to be there for the public, not for the party.”

Simon Jupp led the debate. Unfortunately his fellow Tories from Devon followed his lead, especially Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) and Kevin Foster (Torbay). [Though to give Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) her due, she did try to rise above this.]

They let SWW off the hook from the start:

For example, here is how Simon Jupp opened the debate:

….In recent years, a spotlight has been shone on storm overflows and CSOs. Water tourism is booming across our region, including windsurfing in places such as Exmouth and Sidmouth in my constituency. However, there is another reason why people have finally started talking about the issue: the Conservative Government have put in place a plan to improve our water, giving us all an opportunity to hold water companies to account.

People finally talking about the issue of sewage because the Tories have a plan? Really!

……Of course, in a perfect world, we would stop sewage spills completely and immediately. Sadly, that is virtually impossible in the short term; because of the pressure on our water infrastructure, we would risk the collapse of the entire water network, and the eye-watering costs involved mean we would need not just a magic money tree, but a whole forest.

No short term solution because it would cost? Why so little investment over the years?

…….The Government cannot in good conscience legislate to let water bills reach astronomical levels—they are already high enough, especially in the south-west—but some of our political opponents seem to think otherwise. The Liberal Democrats have accused Conservative MPs of voting to pollute our waters and seas. That is frankly ridiculous. Why would any of us vote to put sewage in the sea? I live by the sea in Sidmouth, and I love where I live. I am calling on South West Water to invest in infrastructure in our town and across East Devon.

No legislation because SWW (and the others) would protect their investors and load the cost on the customer? – Off the hook!

And finally the Tory trope, previously discussed by Owl:  “We would never vote to pollute our water” (True but Tories voted against imposing a legal duty to stop it, instead voting for something very much more “light touch”, they also postponed the deadline on agricultural runoff reduction.)

This was immediately reinforced by his sidekick Anthony Magnall, who said: It is not only ridiculous; it is incorrect. The legislation we have passed is the first ever to address this issue, and it is leading to meaningful action. Let us be clear: it is incorrect to suggest that any Member of Parliament voted to allow sewage to flow into our rivers or on to our coastline.

Contrast this with Richard Foord:

Like other Members, I received an email ahead of the debate from Pennon Group, which owns South West Water. It reads:

“We wanted to provide you with the most recent information so that you are able to have an informed debate”.

Although that could be thought of as an act of kindness on the part of the water company and Pennon Group, I for one would rather be informed by what my constituents are writing to tell me about than by what a lobbyist suggests I should think. I will be informed by constituents and bill payers.

Since my election last June, the comments and complaints have flooded in. We have heard that South West Water has permitted sewage to flood out on to our beaches and into our rivers. I am pleased that the Minister is present, because I want her and South West Water representatives to hear about some of my constituents’ experiences.

Just this month, an Axminster constituent wrote to me:

“I’d like to know why our water bills are going up when SWW are performing so badly and why it’s okay for the CEO to get such massive bonuses. We don’t get to choose our water supply like we do for other utilities and SWW has been given a free pass to rip us off. We’ve been told for years our bills are high because of ageing pipes and the size of our coastline, so why did the CEO of SWW get such a large bonus when we have such high bills?”

A second constituent wrote to me in January, after the cold snap, to explain how their access to water had been disrupted by burst water pipes. The constituent, who is from Seaton, wrote:

“I simply have to write to express my disappointment and disgust over the lack of care and co-operation shown by South West Water. If SWW are serious about customer care and ‘saving every drop’ then SWW would be making more of an effort to actually monitor those leaks which are reported to them but they are not responsible for. As a paying customer all we ever seem to get from the SWW leak team is ‘It’s not our problem.’ Surely you have a duty of care for your paying customers?”

Those are just samples of the correspondence that I have received from constituents, as I am able to bring only a few examples to bear today, but I will add one more. In December, a constituent from Beer wrote:

“Why is it that South West Water is able to charge rates that provide for update and maintenance of the sewers and drains and yet only spend 37% of their allocated budget on doing this? Is it because Pennon used some of this budget to return over £1 billion to shareholders last year? When will the government get to grips with the individuals running the water companies and pass legislation to stop the destruction of the environment from the continual discharge of untreated sewage, even in dry conditions?”

All this shows the huge discontent among our constituents, who have simply lost faith in South West Water’s ability to properly deal with the situation at hand. We are seeing sewage dumped in our rivers and on our beaches over thousands of hours, putting at risk not only the health of the public but our wildlife and biodiversity. The scale of the problem should not be understated. People feel that they are being ripped off by a company that continues to hike bills but pays out huge bonuses and large shareholder dividends while it fails to perform even its most basic functions effectively. It is clear that the company is not being run for the benefit of south-west communities and that the current regulator, Ofwat, lacks the teeth to properly police its actions.

We heard from the hon. Member for East Devon that the regulator has some teeth. If that is true, the Government permit them to be kept in a glass on the bedside table. The company is not being run for the benefit of our constituents. My message to South West Water is simple: fix the problems, focus on delivering a quality service for our constituents, and do not pat yourselves on the back for a job done so shoddily.

Full Hansard transcript can be found here.