Connect with us

Published

on

Boris Johnson has claimed he was forced to plunge the UK into lockdown because of NHS “bed blocking”.

In a section of his witness statement shared with the official COVID inquiry, the former prime minister said the “extreme measures” announced on 23 March 2020 were introduced because the health service had “failed to grip” the problem of delayed discharges.

Politics Live: Matt Hancock wanted to decide ‘who should live and who should die’

The term, also known as bed blocking, is used to describe patients – mostly elderly – who are occupying a hospital bed they do not strictly need, often because the next stage of their care has not been organised.

Mr Johnson said: “It was very frustrating to think that we were being forced to extreme measures to lock down the country and protect the NHS – because the NHS and social services had failed to grip the decades-old problem of delayed discharges, commonly known as bed blocking.

“Before the pandemic began I was doing regular tours of hospitals and finding that about 30% of patients did not strictly need to be in acute sector beds.”

A paramedic walks past a line of ambulances outside the Royal London Hospital, in London, during England's third national lockdown to curb the spread of coronavirus. Picture date: Wednesday January 20, 2021.
Image:
A line of ambulances outside the Royal London Hospital during England’s third national lockdown

The claim was rejected by former NHS chief executive Lord Stevens, who gave evidence to the inquiry on Thursday morning.

He said: “We, and indeed he, were being told that if action was not taken on reducing the spread of coronavirus, there wouldn’t be 30,000 hospital inpatients, there would be maybe 200,000 or 800,000 hospital inpatients.

“So you can’t say that you would be able to deal with 200,000 or 800,000 inpatients by reference to 30,000 blocked beds.

“Even if all of those 30,000 beds were freed up – for every one coronavirus patient who was then admitted to that bed, there would be another five patients who needed that care but weren’t able to get it.

“So no, I don’t think that is a fair statement in describing the decision calculus for the first wave.”

Hancock ‘wanted to decide who should live’

The inquiry also head on Thursday that former health secretary Matt Hancock wanted to decide who should live or die if hospitals became overwhelmed by coronavirus patients.

Lord Stevens said: “[Mr Hancock] 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.

“Fortunately this horrible dilemma never crystallised.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Health secretary ‘wanted to decide who should live’

He added: “I certainly wanted to discourage the idea that an individual secretary of state, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, should be deciding how care would be provided.”

Lord Stevens further told the hearing that senior ministers “sometimes avoided” Cobra meetings in the early days of the pandemic chaired by Mr Hancock.

Read More:
Johnson ‘suggested COVID was nature’s way of dealing with old people
Analysis: The calm takedown of Johnson’s COVID Downing Street

PM ‘asked if blowing hairdryer up nose could kill COVID’

In his witness statement, he said the emergency meetings “usefully brought together a cross-section of departments, agencies and the devolved administrations.

“However, these meetings were arguably not optimally effective. They were very large, and when Cobra meetings were chaired by the health and social care secretary, other secretaries of state sometimes avoided attending and delegated to their junior ministers instead.”

Asked by Andrew O’Connor KC if that was a reflection on Mr Hancock, Lord Stevens said: “I am not saying that was cause and effect, but that was the fact of the matter. I just observed that those two coincided.”

Mr Hancock has previously come under criticism during the inquiry, with witnesses accusing him of telling untruths and displaying “nuclear levels” of overconfidence.

The inquiry is examining political and administrative decision-making during the pandemic, with a picture emerging of chaos, dysfunctionality, incompetence and backstabbing at the heart of government during the crisis.

This week has heard how Number 10 was “unbelievably bullish” in 2020 before the full effects of the pandemic were felt in Britain – with some senior figures allegedly “laughing” at the severity of the situation in Italy – one of the first European countries to be hit by the virus.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Witnesses, including Mr Johnson’s former chief adviser Dominic Cummings and ex communications chief Lee Cain, have described the government as being in “complete chaos” by early March.

Mr Johnson allegedly dithered over whether to announce a lockdown because he wanted to be like the mayor in the film Jaws, who kept beaches open despite the danger of shark attacks.

On Wednesday, former civil servant Helen McNamara described how on 13 March, 10 days before lockdown, she had learned there was “no plan” for the NHS to deal with a pandemic.

Ms NcNamara said she warned Mr Johnson’s top officials: “I think we’re absolutely f****d, I think this country is heading for a disaster, I think we’re going to kill thousands of people.”

Witnesses scheduled to appear at the inquiry next week include former cabinet secretary and head of the civil service Lord Sedwill, former Number 10 special adviser Dr Ben Warner and former home secretary Dame Priti Patel.

Continue Reading

Politics

China ‘enemy’ reference removed from key witness statement for collapsed spy trial

Published

on

By

China 'enemy' reference removed from key witness statement for collapsed spy trial

A reference to China being an “enemy” of the UK was removed from key evidence for a collapsed spy trial in 2023 as it “did not reflect government policy” under the Conservatives at the time, according to the national security adviser.

In the letter published by parliament’s Joint Committee on National Security Strategy earlier on Friday, National Security Adviser (NSA) Jonathan Powell said Counter Terror Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were aware of the change made by Deputy National Security Adviser (DSNA) Matt Collins.

This would mean the CPS knew the “enemy” reference had been removed before charging the two suspects, according to Mr Powell.

In another letter published on Friday, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson told the committee that it took DSNA Mr Collins more than a year to confirm to prosecutors he would not say China posed a threat to UK national security in court.

Politics latest: Farage reacts after Reform defeated by Plaid

The DPP said a High Court judge ruled in June last year that an “enemy” under law is a state which “presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security”, prompting the CPS to ask the DNSA whether China fulfilled that criteria.

He added prosecutors did not believe there would be “any difficulty in obtaining evidence” from Mr Collins that China was a national security threat, but added: “This was a sticking point that could not be overcome.”

More on China

Mr Parkinson added that the DNSA’s “unwillingness” to describe China as an active or current threat was “fatal to the case” because Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry’s defence teams would have been entitled to call him as a witness.

The DPP added: “This factor is compounded by the fact that drafts of the first witness statement, reviewed by us in July 2025, showed that references to China being an ‘enemy’ or ‘possible enemy’ had been deleted.

“Those drafts would probably have been disclosable to the defence.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What do we know about the China spy case?

A final draft of Mr Collins’ statement was sent to then-prime minister Rishi Sunak in December 2023, Mr Powell’s letter said.

“Drafts of a statement provided to DNSA included the term ‘enemy’ but he removed this term from the final draft as it did not reflect government policy,” the letter reads.

Read more:
MI5 boss on threats from China
The three key questions about the China spy case that need to be answered

It comes amid a political row over the collapse of the prosecution of Christopher Berry and Christopher Cash last month, who were accused of conducting espionage for China.

Both individuals vehemently deny the claims.

Because the CPS was pursuing charges under the Official Secrets Act 1911, prosecutors would have had to show the defendants were acting for an “enemy”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

China spy row: Witness statements explained

DPP Mr Parkinson has come under pressure to provide a fuller explanation for the abandonment of the case.

He has blamed insufficient evidence being provided by the government that Beijing represented a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences.

The Conservatives have accused Sir Keir Starmer of letting the case collapse, but Labour has said there was nothing more it could have done.

The current government has insisted ministers did not intervene in the case or attempt to make representations to ensure the strength of evidence, for fear of interfering with the course of justice.

Sir Keir Starmer met Chinese premier Xi Jingping in November 2024. Pic: PA
Image:
Sir Keir Starmer met Chinese premier Xi Jingping in November 2024. Pic: PA

The DNSA and DPP will face questions from the parliamentary committee on Monday afternoon.

The current attorney general, Lord Hermer, and the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, Darren Jones, will be questioned on Wednesday.

The PM’s spokesman reiterated the government’s position that “what is relevant in a criminal case of this nature is the government’s position at the time of the alleged offences”.

Continue Reading

Politics

Who is Lindsay Whittle? The man who stood unsuccessfully in Caerphilly 13 times, then won on the 14th try

Published

on

By

Who is Lindsay Whittle? The man who stood unsuccessfully in Caerphilly 13 times, then won on the 14th try

Lindsay Whittle stood for election in Caerphilly 13 times since 1983 – and on the 14th attempt, he finally succeeded.

In the process, the 72-year-old local boy – nicknamed “Mr Caerphilly” – humiliated the Labour Party, which had held the Senedd seat since its creation in 1999 and the Westminster constituency for over a century.

Born in the miner’s hospital, Mr Whittle lived in a council house and grew up in the town, located to the north of Cardiff, that he now represents.

A lifelong Plaid Cymru activist, his interest in politics was first piqued in the 1960s. He said he even missed an O Level (GCSE) exam in the 1970s because he was out canvassing for the party.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Watch Lindsay Whittle’s victory speech.

Mr Whittle was first elected in 1976 to represent the Penyrheol and Trecenydd ward on Rhymney Valley district council, and he was re-elected repeatedly until the council was abolished in 1996.

He then contested the Penyrheol ward on the new Caerphilly County Borough Council, created in 1995, and was elected to represent it seven times. He served as the council’s leader for two periods between 1999 and 2004, and has also served as Plaid Cymru’s group leader on the council since 2022.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Plaid Cymru is ‘ready to lead Wales’, party leader Rhun ap Iorwerth told Sky News.

But, despite his success at the local level, Mr Whittle was only able to secure election to the then Welsh Assembly once in six attempts since its creation in 1999, becoming an MS on the South Wales East list 2011, before losing his seat in 2016.

In those five years in Cardiff, he was appointed Plaid Cymru’s spokesperson for Social Services, Children, and Equal Opportunities, and he was able to work on his key political interests of housing and local government, as well as combating homelessness.

Lindsay Whittle in front of the Caerphilly Castle after his victory. Pic: PA
Image:
Lindsay Whittle in front of the Caerphilly Castle after his victory. Pic: PA

Read more from Sky News:
Reform beaten by Plaid Cymru in Caerphilly by-election
Analysis: Farage nowhere to be seen as Reform loses by-election

Election by the people of his hometown of Caerphilly has always eluded him, however, having lost the 13 other elections for Westminster and the Senedd that he has stood in throughout a lifetime in Welsh politics.

But that all changed last night when he was elected with a majority of nearly 4,000 votes to take over from the late Hefin David, the beloved Labour representative to whom he paid tribute in his victory speech.

Lindsay Whittle speaking to Sky's Jon Craig at the election night count in Caerphilly. Pic: PA
Image:
Lindsay Whittle speaking to Sky’s Jon Craig at the election night count in Caerphilly. Pic: PA

Speaking to our chief political correspondent Jon Craig as dawn broke over the town he was born in and now represents, Mr Whittle said: “I would need to be a poet to put into words how I genuinely feel about the honour that all the people of Caerphilly have bestowed upon me.

“Almost half of the people who went out to vote, just 2% short of half of the people, put their confidence in Lindsay Whittle and Plaid Cymru. I cannot tell you what an honour that is.”

He added: “Retirement is not for me. I’m not the sort of guy who relaxes on beaches. In fact, I don’t think I ever relax. It’s people. It’s people that make me carry on.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto.com pushes for federal footing with US trust bank charter application

Published

on

By

Crypto.com pushes for federal footing with US trust bank charter application

Crypto.com pushes for federal footing with US trust bank charter application

If approved, the charter would allow the crypto exchange to offer federally regulated custody and trust services in the United States.

Continue Reading

Trending