Cathy Gardner’s case is referenced in the last paragraph. – Owl

Matt Hancock has accepted that his claim the government threw a “protective ring” around care homes “from the start” of the pandemic was misleading.

Ruby Lott-Lavigna www.opendemocracy.net

On 15 May 2020 at a Downing Street press conference, Hancock said: “Right from the start. It’s been clear that this horrible virus affects older people most. So right from the start, we’ve tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.”

At the time, however, patients with Covid were discharged back into care homes without being tested, leading to the death of over 20,000 residents in the first wave of the pandemic.

“I entirely understand why people feel strongly about this,” Hancock told the Covid inquiry today. “I then went on to explain what I meant – that we put over £3bn into the care sector in March and April, that we’ve released free PPE, that we’ve put in place infection control guidance based on the scientific advice, etc.”

“In that press conference, I went on to list the different things that we were doing… I was trying to simply summarise that we had taken action,” he added.

But Hancock agreed this was misleading when the words of a top government scientist were put to him. Jonathan Van-Tam said in his written evidence statement a ring is a “circle without a break in it”.

“However you describe the protective processes you put in place around the care sector, they did not form an unbroken circle, did they?” lead counsel Hugo Keith asked Hancock.

“It is quite clear from the evidence that Professor Van-Tam is right,” he said.

Hancock’s own advisers were also concerned about some of his care home claims.

A message shown to the inquiry from Jamie Njoku-Goodwin, Hancock’s media adviser at the time, said: “We might have some issues with you telling the PM we ‘locked down’ care homes before the rest of the country.”

When challenged, Hancock said: “It depends on how you define lockdown.”

Care homes were not “locked down” before the country. Government guidance setting out restrictions on care home visits was published in April 2020.

A document revealed by openDemocracy shows the government knew, at least by the autumn of 2020, that it had prioritised the NHS “at the detriment” of care homes.

And in 2022, the discharge of Covid patients back into care homes without testing was ruled to have been illegal.

The inquiry continues. openDemocracy is fundraising to pay reporters to cover every day of the public hearings. Please support us by donating here.

More on Sunak’s new green initiative

Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, has come in for huge criticism from other witnesses to the Covid inquiry, from scientists to civil servants and political advisers. These are their key allegations, and his responses:

Rowena Mason www.theguardian.com 

Dominic Cummings, a former senior adviser to Boris Johnson, said in a text message during the pandemic: “I also must stress I think leaving Hancock in post is a big mistake – he is a proven liar who nobody believes or shd believe on anything, and we face going into autumn crisis with the cunt in charge of NHS still.”

On Cummings, Hancock said: “Systems need to be in place so that if there is a malign actor inside No 10 … whose behaviour is unprofessional, the system needs to work despite that.”

Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser during the pandemic, told the inquiry: “I think he had a habit of saying things which he didn’t have a basis for and he would say them too enthusiastically too early, without the evidence to back them up, and then have to backtrack from them days later. I don’t know to what extent that was sort of over-enthusiasm versus deliberate – I think a lot of it was over-enthusiasm.”

Helen MacNamara, a former senior civil servant, said: “What was said in a meeting as actually being under control or going to be delivered or something that was fine … then subsequently a matter of days sometimes, or sometimes weeks later, we’d discover that that wasn’t in fact the case.”

On whether he was a liar, Hancock said: “I was not. You will note that there’s no evidence from anybody who I worked with in the department or the health system who supported those false allegations.”

Simon Stevens, the former head of the NHS, said: “The secretary of state for health and social care took the position that in this situation he – rather than, say, the medical profession or the public – should ultimately decide who should live and who should die.”

Hancock responded: “The Nimbus minutes do show that the NHS asked the question of how to prioritise when there is insufficient NHS capacity and there was a debate around that, as you can see in the minutes, and then I concluded that it should be for clinicians, not for ministers, to make a decision on this basis, and that’s how we went on and proceeded.”

Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary said there was a “clear lack of grip in DHSC [the Department of Health and Social Care]”.

Hancock responded: “It’s normal for the centre, the Cabinet Office, to be sceptical of departments … I think that the toxic culture that you’ve seen at the centre of government, that’s been the subject of much discussion, was unhelpful in assuming that when anything was difficult or a challenge, therefore there was somehow fault and blame.

“That’s a part of the toxic culture that we have seen and some of these exhibits that you’ve just shown demonstrate a lack of generosity or empathy and understanding the difficulty of rising to such a big challenge.”

Local people and businesses in the Sidford/Sidbury area are being asked for their views on proposals for a new multi-use trail linking Sidford to Hillside,Sidbury.

www.stuarthughes.org

From November 22 to January 5 members of the public can view the draft scheme and provide feedback before formal planning permission is sought.

The proposals are for a multi-use trail, approximately half a mile in length, from the north side of the village of Sidford along the western side of the A375 (Two Bridges Road) connecting to Hillside, Sidbury.

Starting on land adjacent to the Waste Water Treatment Plant on the east of Two Bridges Road, the trail would cross the A375 via a new Toucan controlled signal controlled crossing and run along the western side of the A375 in a northerly direction.

It would cross Ottery Lane with a new cycle/walking pedestrian priority crossing and through the existing agricultural land, eventually connecting into Hillside.

This is Phase 1 of the route, with developers providing Phase 2 between Hillside and Sidbury as part of their development.

These proposals follow a previous planning application for a cycle scheme from Sidford to Sidbury which ran along the eastern side of the A375.

However, a decision was made to withdraw that planning application because of engineering challenges, expected higher costs and concerns that the distance from the main road might reduce the perception of personal safety, particularly when dark.

Additionally, the eastern route would have required agreements with multiple landowners, whereas the western route requires permission from one landowner.

Councillor Stuart Hughes, the local county councillor for Sidmouth and Cabinet Member for Highway Management, said: “These plans for a multi use trail at this location is very welcome news and is something that I have advocated for a number of years and would extend the current ‘Byes’ multi use trail between Sidmouth and Sidford.

“It will provide walkers and cyclists, who at present have to use the busy A375, with a safe alternative route while proposals for a new toucan crossing will provide people with a safe place to cross and will slow down vehicles approaching Sidford.

“Sidbury residents will have a safe route to Sidford, Sidmouth and the Community College, and it will also encourage more people to choose active travel for short local journeys which will benefit their health and the environment.”

“These proposals aren’t set in stone and we want to hear what local people think and any suggestions before we apply for planning permission.”

You can give your views by viewing the plans on the Have Your Say webpage and answering a short survey.

Sidbury to Sidford Cycle Route – Have Your Say

Alternatively, please send any responses to transportplanning@devon.gov.uk

All correspondence should quote the scheme name: Sidbury Walking and Cycling Scheme

An online consultation event will be held on Monday 4th December between 5.30 & 6.30pm. Please email transportplanning@devon.gov.uk to request an invite to the event.

It is anticipated that the formal planning application will be submitted in Spring 2024.