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 2020were introducedbecause the health service had “failed to grip” the problem of delayed discharges.
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.”
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.
Advertisement
“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
4:15
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.
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.”
The inquiry is examining political and administrative decision-making during the pandemic, with a picture emerging of chaos, dysfunctionality, incompetence and backstabbingat 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.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
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.
Britain’s annual Remembrance Day has a special dimension this year because it is the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings.
The speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, and the Imperial War Museum are arranging for images of the men and women who took part in the Normandy campaign to be projected on the Elizabeth Tower below Big Ben.
Political leaders past and present will be on parade to lay wreaths at the Cenotaph, which commemorates “Our Glorious Dead” from two world wars and other military conflicts. Those assembled see no contradiction in the fact they are all bound to have been involved in cuts to the UK’s defence capabilities.
D-Day, when British and American troops fought on to the beaches to liberate Europe, is the defining moment of the UK’s patriotic pride to this day – which is why it was a big mistake by Rishi Sunak in the summer to duck out early from France and the international commemorations of 6 June 1944.
Ever since then Britain and Europe have nestled in the security umbrella extended by the United States.
The Americans came, belatedly, to the rescue in both world wars and we assume that it would do so again. The North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) is explicit that an attack on one member is an attack on all, and the US is the dominant contributor to NATO in both cash and military might.
There was already fresh uneasiness among British politicians about how safe we really are as tensions grow around the world from Ukraine to the Middle East to China. A recent House of Commons report was entitled “Ready For War?”.
Russia’s territorial aggression against Ukraine has brought bloody confrontation between nation states back on to our continent.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, Mr Trump, the US president-elect, has said he feels no obligation to defend European countries who do not spend as much as he thinks they should.
Given the enthusiasm of successive governments to cash a peace dividend by cutting back defence spending, there are real doubts as to whether the UK would be able to defend itself if it came to another war, according to General Sir Roly Walker, who has taken over as the head of UK armed forces.
This summer he set himself the task of readying “to deter or fight a war in three years”.
He is aiming to double the “lethality” of the army in the face of threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea which may be separate or co-ordinated.
The recent BRICS summit in Russia and the deployment of North Korean troops to fight with Vladimir Putin’s forces in Ukraine both show their willingness to internationalise local conflicts. George Robertson, the former defence secretary and NATO general secretary heading a defence review for the government, has also identified the threat from this “deadly quartet”.
General Walker says he can increase lethality within existing spending by smarter use of technology such as drones and AI.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The problem is that this will still require diverting resources from existing capabilities, when deployable fighting manpower is already at its lowest for 200 years.
British politicians are increasingly aware of the need to strengthen capability and a number of overlapping inquiries are under way.
But given the overall pressures on the national budget, they have been reluctant to focus on the full financial implications.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:09
Badenoch calls out Lammy at PMQs
At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, the new leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch challenged Sir Kier Starmer to say when the UK will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence; he retorted that it remains an unspecified commitment but that the last Labour government was the last to spend as much. From Mr Cameron to Mr Sunak, the Conservatives never did.
This sparring ignores the reality that for effective security, spending will need to rocket to 3% and beyond, and that Mr Trump may well be the one making that demand.
The US spends 3.5% of its national wealth – matching 68% of the defence spending of all the other members on its own.
They have not all yet hit the official NATO target of 2%, designed in part to “Trump proof” the alliance against the possibility of an American pullout.
The US currently has 100,000 troops based in Europe, increased by 20,000 since Mr Putin’s attack in 2022.
The next Trump administration will certainly want to reduce that number. But a slow reduction of the US commitment is happening in any case.
This week, Professor Malcom Chalmers told MPs on the Defence Select Committee: “The most plausible planning assumption for the UK right now is that America will provide a progressively smaller proportion of NATO’s overall capability and we are going to have to fill those gaps.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:10
Can Trump’s tariffs impact the UK?
Given the likelihood that Mr Trump’s proposed new tariffs will slow the global economy, Sir Keir and the Labour government will have even less to spend on public services than it is proposing. It seems inconceivable that the UK would willingly go beyond 2.5%, whatever the current defence review says is necessary for the defence of the realm.
Just in current defence spending, John Healey, the new defence secretary, claimed he had inherited a £17bn “black hole” of unfunded planned spending from the Conservatives.
Ukraine is likely to be the first flashpoint.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s supporters want the US to increase its military aid when the US wants Europe to take more of the burden of defending itself as the US “pivots” to the greater threat it sees to itself from China.
Mr Trump has said he plans to end the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours.
In essence, Mr Putin would keep some of his territorial claims in Donbas and NATO would not extend its security guarantee to what remains of an independent Ukraine.
Mr Trump has already said that NATO’s longstanding and vague offer of eventual membership was “a mistake”.
Anxious not to alienate the US further and hard-pressed financially, some leading European nations including Germany appear ready to go along with such a sell-out.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
A number of security experts, including former acting deputy prime minister Sir David Lidington, say this deal would be “Donald Trump’s Munich”.
This is a reference to the “peace in our time” deal agreed by prime minister Neville Chamberlain with Adolf Hitler, which failed to halt further aggression by Nazi Germany before the Second World War.
Then, as previously with the First World War, “America First” instincts were to leave the Europeans to sort out their own mess. But American forces ended up shedding their blood decisively in both conflicts.
Once again, the UK and Europe are not ready for war, and relying on an increasingly unreliable US. The politicians, prime ministers and generals gathering at the Cenotaph to honour the war dead should have much on their minds.
A recruitment and retention crisis in the armed forces will grow unless the government exempts military families from paying VAT on private school fees, insiders have warned.
They say a promise to increase an allowance funded by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that helps to cover the cost of school fees does not go far enough, and that highly experienced personnel – officers and other ranks – will quit if Rachel Reeves does not perform a U-turn.
Such a loss in skills would weaken UK defences at a time of rising threats, the insiders say.
A soldier with a child at boarding school, who asked to remain anonymous, said: “I will have to leave military service, as I will not inflict another school move on my child.”
He said: “On one side, the chancellor wore a poppy during her budget announcement, and then proceeded to deal a damaging blow to members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces by not including a simple exemption.”
An army spouse, who asked for her identity to be protected because her husband is serving, said: “This is people’s children. This is people’s money in their pocket.”
More on Defence
Related Topics:
She told Sky News: “If there is a nice job offer outside the military… that is going to look way, way more attractive than it did a few months ago. The army is in a recruitment and retention crisis, so why would you do something like this?”
Offering a sense of the scale of the potential impact, the Army Families Federation, an independent charity, said nearly 70% of families that shared evidence with it about the policy said without protection from the full cost of the VAT they would consider quitting the service.
Advertisement
The mobile nature of military life – with postings around the UK and overseas – often requires service personnel to move every few years, with any children they have forced to relocate with them, transiting in and out of different schools.
To protect against this disruption some parents decide to send their kids to private school – often to board.
More than 2,000 of these personnel – the majority of them in the army – claim money from the MoD to help cover the cost of private school fees.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Continuity of Education Allowance (CEA) funds up to 90% of tuition fees but families must pay a minimum of 10%.
Many of those who take this option will have agonised over the affordability of the portion they will still pay, which can amount to tens of thousands of pounds per year.
They will now have to pay more to cover the VAT on this portion of the bill – or else pull their children out of school, a nightmare option, especially for those serving abroad.
In addition, some other military families that do not qualify for the education allowance – which is only allocated under a very strict criteria – still opt to put their children into boarding school to ensure the continuity of their education at a single location.
They will have no protection from any of the VAT burden.
James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said he has received a lot of messages from impacted families and is urging the government to give them an exemption.
“The emails I’ve had are saying: I’ve got to choose between my child and serving my country,” said Mr Cartlidge, who previously served as a Conservative defence minister.
“The government really needs to respond to this quickly.”
An MoD spokesperson said: “We greatly value the contribution of our serving personnel and we provide the Continuity of Education Allowance to ensure that the need for the mobility of service personnel does not interfere with the education of their children.
“In line with how the allowance normally operates, the MoD will continue to pay up to 90% of private school fees following the VAT changes on 1 January by uprating the current cap rates to take into account any increases in private school fees.”