Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FORMER BRITISH HEALTH secretary Matt Hancock has accused Dominic Cummings of creating a “culture of fear” in the UK Government that undermined the pandemic response.
The former minister defended his record as health secretary and painted Boris Johnson’s ex-chief adviser as a “malign actor” who subjected Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) staff to abuse as they grappled with the emergence of Covid-19.
Cummings sought to grab power from the then-prime minister while shutting out ministers from key meetings, Hancock claimed.
Hancock played a key role in the response to the pandemic but his performance has been repeatedly criticised by a number of other witnesses including Cummings, who has branded him a “proven liar”.
Hitting back as he gave evidence today to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, the former health secretary said Cummings had attempted to exert influence over decision-making in a way that was “inappropriate in a democracy”.
“As the Cobra system was running in February, the prime minister’s chief adviser decided that he didn’t like the Cobra system – that’s on the record – and he decided instead to take all of the major daily decisions into his office and he invited a subset of the people who needed to be there to these meetings,” Hancock said.
“He didn’t invite any ministers. He didn’t regard ministers as a valuable contribution to any decision-making as far as I could see in the crisis or, indeed, any other time.”
He added: “There is a proper Government emergency response system and it was actively circumvented and in one of these early meetings the chief adviser said decisions don’t need to go to the prime minister.
“Now that is inappropriate in a democracy. I saw it simply as essentially a power-grab but it definitely got in the way of organising the response for the period it was in operation.”
Hancock rejected claims he lied to colleagues about having a plan for the outbreak, describing these as “false allegations”.
Instead he pointed the finger at Cummings for, he suggested, presiding over an atmosphere in which blame was assigned rather than allowing people to “spend all of their effort solving the problems”.
“It was deeply, deeply frustrating… we’ve discussed the structural problem which was essentially an adviser trying to take executive authority away from the prime minister for a period until the cabinet secretary stopped it and put in place the MIG (Ministerial Implementation Group) process,” Hancock said.
“But there was also effectively a cultural problem which is that there was a culture of fear inculcated by the behaviour of this particular individual.”
Referring to the resignation of former chancellor Sajid Javid, Hancock added: “He did in the middle of this, in the middle of February, effectively cause the resignation of the chancellor of the exchequer.”
He was interrupted by lead counsel to the inquiry Hugo Keith KC before saying “it’s important”, to which Mr Keith responded: “Please forgive me, the determination of what’s important is really for the questioner.”
Critics have questioned the former health secretary’s record on key issues like rules for nursing homes and Covid testing for asymptomatic cases.
Also known for his appearance last year on ITV’s I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!, Hancock’s political career was torpedoed after footage emerged in 2021 of his embrace with aide Gina Coladangelo which broke social distancing guidelines.
But in today’s evidence he insisted that he had taken “precautionary” measures, in some cases overriding the scientific advice he had been given, and described himself as in the “pro-let’s worry about asymptomatic transmission camp”.
Giving an example, Hancock said he overruled guidance from Public Health England (PHE) during the early pandemic was that there was not a need to quarantine people being brought back from Wuhan in China.
While Hancock accepted the DHSC had not got everything right, he said his department had “effectively” tried to “raise the alarm” to wider Government as early as January, but its concerns were not taken as seriously as they should have been.
“We were on occasions blocked,” he told the inquiry.
He and DHSC faced “deep unpleasantness” from the centre of Government during the early months of the pandemic while the rest of Whitehall was slow to react, Hancock said.
“A healthy culture involves scepticism, an unhealthy culture involves false allegations and extremely unpleasant language,” he added.
Elsewhere, Hancock insisted he had warned the then-PM to lock down as early as 13 March 2020, but conceded there was no entry in his published diaries to back up that claim.
Rebuking Hancock’s account in a broadside on X, formerly Twitter, Cummings said he was “outright lying” by claiming to have privately Johnson to impose the measure and “talking rubbish” to the inquiry.
Hancock talking rubbish on asymptomatic
— Dominic Cummings (@Dominic2306) November 30, 2023
1/ it's in the whatsapp group 11/3 Hancock claiming tests don't work on asymptomatic & Vallance telling him 'wrong' tests DO work - Hancock kept repeating this false idea (badly confusing the PM on the issue & he repeated the…
Allies of the ex-minister responded by saying: “Cummings is not a reliable witness and this tweet is wrong.”
The former aide was among a number of senior figures who questioned Hancock’s approach in their evidence, with the inquiry hearing that the country’s most senior civil servant at the time, Mark Sedwill, wanted the minister sacked.
In one WhatsApp exchange with the permanent secretary at Number 10 Simon Case – who is the current Cabinet Secretary – Sedwill joked it was necessary to remove Hancock to “save lives and protect the NHS”.
WhatsApp messages shared with the inquiry also revealed that Cummings repeatedly pushed Johnson to fire the former minister.
At one stage, Cummings claimed Hancock had “lied his way through this and killed people and dozens and dozens of people have seen it”.
Helen MacNamara, who served as deputy cabinet secretary, also claimed in her evidence that Mr Hancock displayed “nuclear levels” of overconfidence – assertions that he rejected on Thursday.
“There was a huge amount of uncertainty and a huge amount of worry and I basically felt it was my professional duty to try to keep going, to try to keep driving forward,” Hancock said.
Christopher Wormald, a senior civil servant in the Department of Health, suggested it was a “very small number of people” claiming that the minister was “actually telling untruths”.
But he added that there were a lot who thought he was “overoptimistic” and “overpromised” on what could be delivered.
Meanwhile, the inquiry has confirmed Johnson will face two days of questioning over his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic when he gives evidence next week.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A few articles below: Guards need to bring in more revenue from fines
This Article: Even more money to be spent stopping these fine folk from killing themselves so they can continue to harass and steal from those that are not paying enough fines!
Ireland
@Stephen Boland: yes, we should remember that when you are old, unproductive and in need of care.
@Peter Kelly: say again? Neither my comment or the article are referencing anyone old or in need of care. We’re talking about Heroin Peter, no need for the snarky comment
@Stephen Boland: you probably won’t be as cavalier if anyone you know or love ever ends up suffering from addiction. Sadly it takes something like that for people like you who lack empathy to understand.
@Ivan Connolly: it’s hard to have empathy if a junkie steals and threatens people with a syringe.
@Stephen Boland: The city centre shall be thriving like the Olympic village.
@Stephen Boland: Some horrible comments from a few people here including yours Stephen. My brother died due to a heroin overdose in circumstances which you don’t know, you think it’s easy seeing comments like this?? Think before you type guys…
Is there nothing to be said for the process of natural selection?
Oh goodie, another comment section where we get to hear from all the people that think we should just let people die because they made bad choices.
Can someone provide me with the human life “ranking” scale so I know where I land on it. I’ll make sure to never make the mistakes and bad choices that have caused others to become worthless and not “suitable” for help.
@Tricia G: 1. Everyone else – 99. Junkies 100. Paedophiles
We’re gonna be seeing a lot more athletes in town in the future.
Naloxone is looked upon as a curse in the USA by paramedics. As they seem to spend all their time on call outs, retrieving the same addicts, over and over again.
@Jerry Hurley: yes paramedics much prefer patients die. Reduces the workload.
@Ivan Connolly: let me know how you feel . when one of your parents are at the end of the stairs, after a stroke. But all the ambulances are busy looking after the same cohort of druggies for the umpteenth time.
@Jerry Hurley: so what are you suggesting? Let a person who is addicted to opiates, die, because they have overdosed? People don’t overdose on purpose (unless of course the person is using it as a way to try and kill themselves, in which case they don’t only need the help of paramedics but also the support of Councellors.. is that ok with you or are they too much of a waste of oxygen to even access the time of those and taking up an appointment that a “non-addict” could take)
@Lilly Passet-De Nais: leave them at the paramedics are constantly picking up the same people from overdosing on heroine and slowing down response times for genuine cases
What a waate of resources.
Hope the training includes conflict resolution for when they go batshit mental for recking their buzz..
@Shane Fearon: lol
@Shane Fearon: true. A very serious problem for the DFB and HSE ambulance staff. They can get very violent when they realise their “buzz” was taken
@Fiasco99: people are given this drug when they are dying. In some instances when they come round they can be aggressive which is a side effect but don’t let any of that get in the way of your caustic remarks.
@Ivan Connolly: as long as your there to give them a nice hug and a bit of there there cream everything will be fine. But yes attacking people is a terrible side effect, hopefully the drug companies can iron that one out *rolls eyes*
@Ivan Connolly: Nobody is saying not to do it. Just be prepared for the reality.
@Shane Fearon: .
And Shane there lies the problem , the aggression which occurs once the buzz has been taken away.
Regardless however every human has the right to be treated regardless of their addiction.
@Fiasco99 Doses may have to be repeatedly administered every few mins , so the notion that they’ll be dealing with a raging bull because they lost “their buzz” but held on to their lives is wrong. The reaction ,if it occurs is most likely similar to the not too common reaction of being induced out of anaesthesia,where in recovery wards the nurses run about the same risk.
@Milishusdamage: now come on don’t let facts get in the way of a nice bit of prejudiced ignorance. Sone people get a “buzz” from the suffering of others.
@Ivan Connolly: Indeed,and score regularly.
How about we train everyone up in the use off Epipens in the event of anaphylaxis.. and supply people with free epipens ???? Or train people up on the use of glucagon/glucogel for diabetic problems. And stop charging so much money for the medication for the serious problems out there… why do the drug addicts get everything for free??? Anyone have an answer???
@Peter Conroy: 100 % right
have your say