‘Serious errors’ by ministers and scientific advisers ‘cost thousands of lives’ during pandemic, says report by MPs

Published

4 years ago

October 11, 2021

admin

Thousands of lives were lost due to delays and mistakes made at the start of the COVID pandemic by both ministers and their scientific advisers according to a highly critical report by MPs.

A pandemic plan based too much on influenza and “groupthink” among public health officials meant early opportunities to delay the spread of COVID were missed, even though lockdowns, testing and isolation strategies were working in other countries, the report found.

“We know that some of that scientific advice was wrong, but also that politicians should have challenged that advice,” Jeremy Hunt, chair of the Health Select Committee, told Sky News.

“You can’t just say ‘we’re following the science’ – you have to dig down and ask why scientists are saying what they’re saying. That challenge should have happened earlier.”

The key findings of the report include:

– It was a “serious early error” not to lock down sooner

– The decision to abandon testing for COVID in the community early on was a mistake that “cost many lives”

– Failing to prioritise social care and discharging people from hospitals into care homes “led to many thousands of deaths”

– Robust border controls were needed sooner

– There were “serious deficiencies” in communication within government and between central and local government.

According to MPs, “decisions on lockdowns and social distancing during the early weeks of the pandemic – and the advice that led to them – rank as one of the most important public health failures the United Kingdom has ever experienced”.

With more than 135,000 fatalities, the UK has the second-largest COVID-related death toll in Europe, surpassed only by Russia.

The report is the result of a joint inquiry by the Health and Science Select Committees which began last October and interviewed more than 50 witnesses including former health secretary Matt Hancock, Chief Scientist Sir Patrick Vallance, Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty and former Number 10 adviser Dominic Cummings.

It found that while “herd immunity” was never a policy objective, the idea was pervasive among scientific advisers early on in the outbreak.

This “fatalistic” attitude should have been challenged by officials and helped precipitate other errors.

Likewise, a failure to believe that the British public would accept lockdown helped delay one from being implemented, despite evidence that the NHS was going to be overwhelmed with cases.

But the report also praised key elements of the pandemic response, including the decision to pre-order vaccines even before trials had proved their effectiveness.

MPs also praised the ability of the NHS to absorb the pressures COVID placed on it and the rapid deployment of Nightingale hospitals.

But doctors told Sky News that while the NHS proved it was agile, the impact of the pandemic on frontline services was grave and lasting.

Follow the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker

“The NHS has survived but in a very broken fashion, and the people who will suffer will be the people of the United Kingdom,” Dr Zudin Puthucheary, an ICU consultant and member of the Intensive Care Society, told Sky News.

A government spokesperson said: “Throughout the pandemic we have been guided by the scientific and medical experts and we never shied away from taking quick and decisive action.

“As the prime minister has said, we are committed to learning lessons from the pandemic and have committed to holding a full public inquiry in spring.”

Politics

‘We’re a team’: Jess Phillips defends PM’s decision to suspend Labour rebels

Published

5 hours ago

July 17, 2025

admin

Starmer suspends four Labour MPs for breaches of party discipline

A minister has defended Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to discipline rebellious MPs, saying they would have used “stronger” language against those who are “continually causing trouble”.

Home Office minister Jess Phillips told Sky News’ Matt Barbet that Labour MPs were elected “as a team under a banner and under a manifesto” and could “expect” to face disciplinary action if they did not vote with the government.

It comes after the prime minister drew criticism for suspending four Labour MPs who voted against the government on its flagship welfare bill earlier this month, while stripping a further three of their roles as trade envoys.

Politics latest: PM to welcome German chancellor

Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff, Neil Duncan-Jordan and Rachael Maskell all lost the whip, meaning they are no longer part of Labour’s parliamentary party and will sit as independent MPs.

Labour backbenchers lined up to criticise the move last night, arguing it was a “terrible look” that made “a Reform government much more likely”.

But speaking to Sky News, Ms Phillips said: “We were elected as a team under a banner and under a manifesto, and we have to seek to work together, and if you are acting in a manner that is to undermine the ability of the government to deliver those things, I don’t know what you expect.

“Now I speak out against things I do not like, both internally and sometimes externally, all the time.

“There is a manner of doing that, that is the right way to go about it. And sometimes you feel forced to rebel and vote against.”

Referring to a description of the rebels by an unnamed source in The Times, she said: “I didn’t call it persistent knob-headery, but that’s the way that it’s been termed by some.”

She said she would have described it as “something much more sweary” because “we are a team, and we have to act as a team in order to achieve something”.

More than 100 MPs had initially rebelled against the plan to cut personal independent payments (PIP). Ultimately, 47 voted against the bill’s third reading, after it was watered down significantly in the face of defeat.

Three other MPs – who also voted against the government – have had their trade envoy roles removed. They are Rosena Allin Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin.

However, it is understood this was not the only reason behind the decision to reprimand all seven MPs, with sources citing “repeated breaches of party discipline”.

Ms Maskell was one of the lead rebels in the welfare revolt, and has more recently called for a wealth tax to fund the U-turn.

Mr Hinchliff, the MP for North East Hertfordshire, proposed a series of amendments to the flagship planning and infrastructure bill criticising the government’s approach.

Mr Duncan-Jordan, the MP for Poole, led a rebellion against the cut to the winter fuel payments while Alloa and Grangemouth MP Mr Leishman has been critical of the government’s position on Gaza as well as the closing of an oil refinery in his constituency.

Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, wrote on X on Wednesday that the prime minister’s actions “don’t show strength” and were “damaging Labour’s support and risk rolling out the red carpet for Reform”.

Leeds East MP Richard Burgon added that “challenging policies that harm our communities” would “make a Reform government much more likely”.

Ian Lavery, Labour MP for Blyth and Ashington, warned the suspensions were “a terrible look”.

“Dissatisfaction with the direction the leadership is taking us isn’t confined to the fringes,” he wrote.

Politics

Five reasons to be confused by Starmer’s MP suspensions

Published

7 hours ago

July 17, 2025

admin

Five reasons to be confused by Starmer's MP suspensions

I’m going to level with you – I am very, very confused.

In fact, I’ve got five reasons why I’m very confused.

The first reason I’m confused is because this is meant to be a show of strength, but most people have literally never heard of these four individuals.

Rachael Maskell is a bit well-known, but if this is intended to impress the public, then I’m not sure the public will notice.

Secondly, if it’s about installing discipline in the parliamentary Labour Party, I’m confused about that. Surely Sir Keir Starmer‘s aim right now should be to unite the parliamentary Labour Party rather than divide it.

After the welfare rebellion, the promise was to listen. Starmer gave interviews saying he was going to create policy more sympathetic to his party.

This is the opposite approach.

The third reason I’m confused is because they’ve been suspended in part for their role in the welfare rebellion that forced the government into its U-turn.

It was only yesterday morning that Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the government’s welfare reforms were in the “right place” – yet the people who helped get them there are suspended.

Suspended for agreeing with what is now government policy is an odd look.

Fourth, I’m confused at who the most prominent individual to be suspended is – Rachael Maskell.

She was on Sky News within minutes of the suspension looking genuinely surprised and really rather upset.

Now, there’s absolutely no doubt she was a ringleader in this rebellion. Eight days ago, she authored an article in the New Statesman discussing how to organise a government rebellion – so I think that’s pretty much case closed.

But Rachael is of the soft left, not the hard left. And who else is on the soft left? It’s Starmer.

It does feel as if the prime minister is slightly coming for people who have dangerously similar views to him.

I understand this is all about drawing hard lines and showing who’s on your team and who isn’t.

But some of that line looks like it goes awfully close to people that you really wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of if you’re prime minister.

And finally, three other MPs – Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin – have been sacked from their trade envoy jobs. They do retain the party whip.

But here’s the thing that hurts your head: if you are a Lib Dem trade envoy, like Sarah Olney, or if you’re a Tory trade envoy, as George Freeman was until a couple of weeks ago when he was suspended, you do not have to obey the whip – and you can continue to keep your trade envoy role.

But if you’re in the Labour Party and you’re a trade envoy, you do have to obey the whip.

And it’s just one of those mad inconsistencies where if you’re in another party, you can keep your trade envoy role, if you’re in the governing party, you can’t. That just doesn’t make sense at all.

So there are my five reasons why I’m completely confused.