Connect with us

Published

on

Matt Hancock has accused Dominic Cummings of giving “inaccurate” evidence to the COVID inquiry as he refuted accusations he himself was a liar – while also claiming the first lockdown happening three weeks earlier would have saved “many, many lives”.

The former health secretary on Thursday spent the whole day giving evidence to the UK’s COVID inquiry – and will return to continue doing so Friday.

In an escalating war of words, Mr Hancock accused Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser of being a “malign actor” who created a “toxic culture” in Downing Street during the pandemic.

Politics Live: Ex-Labour chancellor Alistair Darling dies

Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge

Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge

Sky News Monday to Thursday at 7pm.
Watch live on Sky channel 501, Freeview 233, Virgin 602, the Sky News website and app or YouTube.

Tap here for more

The broadside came as Mr Hancock was asked about accusations levelled at him that he had a habit of saying things that weren’t true when he held the top post in the health department.

Inquiry counsel Hugo Keith said a number of witnesses – including Mr Cummings, ex-chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance and former deputy cabinet secretary Helen MacNamara – referred to Mr Hancock as “lying”, “getting overexcited and just saying stuff” and saying things “which surprise people because they knew the evidence base wasn’t there”.

‘I was not’ lying

More from Politics

Mr 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.”

He added: “What there was, was a great deal of hard work on our side and a toxic culture that we had to work with, which seemed to want to find people to blame rather than spend all of their effort solving the problems.”

Mr Hancock went on to say that the “toxic culture” in government was “essentially caused by the chief adviser [Mr Cummings]” and the impact was that “others were brought into it”.

He said “the lesson for the future is systems need to be in place so that if there is a malign actor in No 10” or “people whose behaviour is unprofessional” then “the system needs to be able to work despite that”.

While defending his own relationship with the truth, Mr Hancock suggested that Mr Cummings’ testimony was “not accurate”.

He was presented with evidence the former adviser gave to the inquiry, saying that by 11 March – two weeks before the nation went into lockdown – it was generally understood a large percentage of the virus was being transmitted asymptomatically.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Did you lie your way through COVID?’

Read More:
Key questions facing ex-health secretary when he gives evidence
Hancock’s ex-aide called Cummings a ‘psychopath’
Inquiry reveals a toxic, destructive group working through a crisis

Mr Hancock said: “Well that is not accurate, as much of that particular witness’s evidence is not accurate, that is not accurate in all areas.”

In his attack on Mr Cummings, Mr Hancock also claimed the ex-top aide created a “culture of fear”, abused health department staff and “got in the way” of the response to the pandemic by trying to stage “a power-grab” and exclude ministers from meetings.

He said Mr Cummings had attempted to exert influence over decision-making in a way that was “inappropriate in a democracy”.

But Mr Cummings, who was heavily critical of Mr Hancock in his evidence to the inquiry, calling him a “proven liar”, hit back on social media that the former Tory MP is talking “rubbish”.

‘Incredibly raw’ to see Hancock give evidence


Nick Martin - News correspondent

Nick Martin

People and politics correspondent

@NickMartinSKY

“It’s incredibly raw to me.”

Nicola Richards lost 30 residents of her care home during the peak of the virus.

As she watched Matt Hancock give his evidence to the COVID-19 inquiry, she remembered the trauma of those days in spring 2020.

Mr Hancock admitted he failed to “throw a protective ring around care homes” – as he claimed at a Downing Street press conference in May 2020.

It brings back memories for me too. Because during the peak of the virus, I was with the staff and residents of Nicola’s care home in Sheffield, which was like thousands across the country in the grip of this unknown, invisible but deadly virus.

I witnessed for myself a lack of PPE, a shortage of tests for staff and patients discharged from hospital without being tested.

Patients gasping for breath, their relatives unable to be by their bedside in those final moments.

Nicola says she’s still dealing with the guilt of staff who likely came into contact with residents when they didn’t know they had the virus, potentially passing it on to the vulnerable.

Through the inquiry, Mr Hancock’s been accused of lying by his close political and scientific colleagues, but perhaps the worst verdict is from those who were on the front line on care homes.

“It’s incredibly raw to me. It’s upsetting to hear Mr Hancock speak about this three years on,” said Nicola.

“There was never a protective ring around care homes. We were left to fend for ourselves and the most vulnerable suffered.”

Locking down earlier, the care sector and Eat Out to Help Out

In the latter half of the inquiry, Mr Hancock was probed on various parts of the government’s response to the pandemic.

He said that 28 February 2020 was when the centre of government – including Mr Johnson – “really started to come into action”.

The former health secretary defended the path of action taken at the time, but said “with hindsight”, “that’s the moment we should have [locked down], three weeks, and it would have been would have saved many, many lives”.

The inquiry later moved on to the care sector and the way Mr Hancock described putting a “protective ring” around care homes.

At one point, messages sent from Mr Hancock’s then adviser, Jamie Njoku-Goodwin, on 13 May are shown to the inquiry. He tells his boss they might “have some issues” with Mr Hancock telling Mr Johnson care homes were “locked down” before the rest of the UK.

Handout photo issued by 10 Downing Street of Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock during a media briefing in Downing Street, London, on coronavirus (COVID-19). PA Photo. Picture date: Friday May 1, 2020. See PA story HEALTH Coronavirus. Photo credit should read: Pippa Fowles/10 Downing Street/Crown Copyright/PA Wire..NOTE TO EDITORS: This handout photo may only be used in for editorial reporting purposes for the contemporaneous illustration of events, things or the people in the image or facts mentioned in the caption. Reuse of the picture may require further permission from the copyright holder.
Image:
Mr Hancock admitted there were holes in his ‘protective ring’ of care homes

The only evidence for Mr Hancock’s claim at the time was guidance from 13 March which told sick people and contractors to stay away from care facilities, and encouraged hand-washing.

Mr Hancock also admitted that his so-called “protective ring” around care homes was not an unbroken circle of protection and had holes in it.

The former health secretary confirmed to the inquiry that he had not heard about the controversial Eat Out to Help Out scheme – which discounted using hospitality after the first lockdown – before it was announced to cabinet and the public.

Messages show that – despite being told the scheme was “causing problems”, Mr Hancock told cabinet secretary Simon Case he had “kept it out of the news”.

He added that he had been “protecting [the Treasury headed by then chancellor Rishi Sunak] in the comms and thankfully it hasn’t bubbled up”.

The former cabinet minister claimed he did this because he believed government is a “team effort”.

Mr Hancock played a key role in the UK’s pandemic response but various witnesses have expressed concern about his approach, with the inquiry hearing that the country’s most senior civil servant wanted him to be sacked and another accusing him of displaying “nuclear levels of overconfidence”.

His political career was torpedoed after footage emerged in 2021 of his affair with aide Gina Coladangelo which broke social distancing guidelines.

He now sits as an independent MP after losing the party whip for appearing on ITV’s I’m A Celebrity reality TV show following his sacking.

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

He sought to defend his record during the lengthy evidence hearing, claiming he raised concerns about COVID in early 2020 but they were not taken seriously, and that he even warned Mr Johnson to go into lockdown 10 days before this actually happened.

But the inquiry barrister questioned his claim, saying there was no entry in Mr Hancock’s book, Pandemic Diaries, recording such a conversation and no notes or emails in the inquiry’s possession to back up his version of events.

Continue Reading

Politics

Phoenix FIRE investors allege exit scam; owner moves to dismiss case

Published

on

By

Phoenix FIRE investors allege exit scam; owner moves to dismiss case

Phoenix FIRE investors allege exit scam; owner moves to dismiss case

Daniel Ianello has asked a Tennessee court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing him of orchestrating an exit scam after taking over a crypto project.

Continue Reading

Politics

I’ve followed the PM wherever he goes in his first year in office – here’s what I’ve observed

Published

on

By

I've followed the PM wherever he goes in his first year in office - here's what I've observed

July 5 2024, 1pm: I remember the moment so clearly.

Keir Starmer stepped out of his sleek black car, grasped the hand of his wife Vic, dressed in Labour red, and walked towards a jubilant crowd of Labour staffers, activists and MPs waving union jacks and cheering a Labour prime minister into Downing Street for the first time in 14 years.

Starmer and his wife took an age to get to the big black door, as they embraced those who had helped them win this election – their children hidden in the crowd to watch their dad walk into Number 10.

Politics latest: Corbyn starts new party

Keir Starmer, not the easiest public speaker, came to the podium and told the millions watching this moment the “country has voted decisively for change, for national renewal”.

He spoke about the “weariness at the heart of the nation” and “the lack of trust” in our politicians as a “wound” that “can only be healed by actions not words”. He added: “This will take a while but the work of change begins immediately.”

A loveless landslide

That was a day in which this prime minister made history. His was a victory on a scale that comes around but one every few decades.

He won the largest majority in a quarter of a century and with it a massive opportunity to become one of the most consequential prime ministers of modern Britain – alongside the likes of Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair.

But within the win was a real challenge too.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Starmer’s was a loveless landslide, won on a lower share of the vote than Blair in all of his three victories and 6 percentage points lower than the 40% Jeremy Corbyn secured in the 2017 general election.

It was the lowest vote share than any party forming a post-war majority government. Support for Labour was as shallow as it was wide.

In many ways then, it was a landslide built on shaky foundations: low public support, deep mistrust of politicians, unhappiness with the state of public services, squeezed living standards and public finances in a fragile state after the huge cost of the pandemic and persistent anaemic growth.

Put another way, the fundamentals of this Labour government, whatever Keir Starmer did, or didn’t do, were terrible. Blair came in on a new dawn. This Labour government, in many ways, inherited the scorched earth.

The one flash of anger I’ve seen

For the past year, I have followed Keir Starmer around wherever he goes. We have been to New York, Washington (twice), Germany (twice), Brazil, Samoa, Canada, Ukraine, the Netherlands and Brussels. I can’t even reel off the places we’ve been to around the UK – but suffice to say we’ve gone to all the nations and regions.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Starmer pushed on scale of “landslide” election win

What I have witnessed in the past year is a prime minister who works relentlessly hard. When we flew for 27 hours non-stop to Samoa last autumn to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) summit, every time I looked up at the plane, I saw a solitary PM, his headlight shining on his hair, working away as the rest of us slept or watched films.

He also seems almost entirely unflappable. He rarely expresses emotion. The only time I have seen a flash of anger was when I questioned him about accepting freebies in a conversation that ended up involving his family, and when Elon Musk attacked Jess Phillips.

I have also witnessed him being buffeted by events in a way that he would not have foreseen. The arrival of Donald Trump into the White House has sucked the prime minister into a whirlwind of foreign crises that has distracted him from domestic events.

When he said over the weekend, as a way of explanation not an excuse, that he had been caught up in other matters and taken his eye off the ball when it came to the difficulties of welfare reform, much of Westminster scoffed, but I didn’t.

I had followed him around in the weeks leading up to that vote. We went from the G7 in Canada, to the Iran-Israel 12-day war, to the NATO summit in the Hague, as the prime minister dealt with, in turn, the grooming gangs inquiry decision, the US-UK trade deal, Donald Trump, de-escalation in the Middle East and a tricky G7 summit, the assisted dying vote, the Iran-Israel missile crisis.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

In September 2024, the PM defended taking £20k GCSE donation

He was taking so many phone calls on Sunday morning from Chequers, that he couldn’t get back to London for COBRA [national emergency meeting] because he couldn’t afford to not have a secure phone line for the hour-long drive back to Downing Street.

He travelled to NATO, launched the National Security Review and agreed to the defence alliance’s commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035. So when he came back from the Hague into a full-blown welfare rebellion, I did have some sympathy for him – he simply hadn’t had the bandwidth to deal with the rebellion as it began to really gather steam.

Dealing with rebellion

Where I have less sympathy with the prime minister and his wider team is how they let it get to that point in the first place.

Keir Starmer wasn’t able to manage the latter stages of the rebellion, but the decisions made months earlier set it up in all its glory, while Downing Street’s refusal to heed the concerns of MPs gave it momentum to spiral into a full-blown crisis.

The whips gave warning after 120 MPs signed a letter complaining about the measures, the Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall had done the same, but Starmer and Reeves were, in the words of one minister, “absolutist”.

“They assumed people complaining about stuff do it because they are weak, rather than because they are strong,” said the minister, who added that following the climbdown, figures in Number 10 “just seemed completely without knowledge of the gravity of it”.

That he marks his first anniversary with the humiliation of having to abandon his flagship welfare reforms or face defeat in the Commons – something that should be unfathomable in the first year of power with a majority that size – is disappointing.

To have got it that wrong, that quickly with your parliamentary party, is a clear blow to his authority and is potentially more chronic. I am not sure yet how he recovers.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare vote ‘a blow to the prime minister’

Keir Starmer said he wanted to rule country first, party second, but finds himself pinned by a party refusing to accept his centrist approach. Now, ministers tell MPs that there will be a financial consequence of the government’s decision to delay tightening the rules on claiming disability benefits beyond the end of 2026.

A shattered Rachel Reeves now has to find the £5bn she’d hoped to save another way. She will defend her fiscal rules, which leaves her the invidious choice of tax rises or spending cuts. Sit back and watch for the growing chorus of MPs that will argue Starmer needs to raise more taxes and pivot to the left.

That borrowing costs of UK debt spiked on Wednesday amid speculation that the chancellor might resign or be sacked, is a stark reminder that Rachel Reeves, who might be unpopular with MPs, is the markets’ last line of defence against spending-hungry Labour MPs. The party might not like her fiscal rules, but the markets do.

What’s on the horizon for year two?

The past week has set the tone now for the prime minister’s second year in office. Those around him admit that the parliamentary party is going to be harder to govern. For all talk of hard choices, they have forced the PM to back down from what were cast as essential welfare cuts and will probably calculate that they can move him again if they apply enough pressure.

There is also the financial fall-out, with recent days setting the scene for what is now shaping up to be another definitive budget for a chancellor who now has to fill a multi-billion black hole in the public finances.

But I would argue that the prime minister has misjudged the tone as he marks that first year. Faced with a clear crisis and blow to his leadership, instead of tackling that head on the prime minister sought to ignore it and try to plough on, embarking on his long-planned launch of the 10-year NHS plan to mark his year in office, as if the chancellor’s tears and massive Labour rebellions over the past 48 hours were mere trifles.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why was the chancellor crying at PMQs?

It was inevitable that this NHS launch would be overshadowed by the self-inflicted shambles over welfare and the chancellor’s distress, given this was the first public appearance of both of them since it had all blown up.

But when I asked the prime minister to explain how it had gone so wrong on welfare and how he intended to rebuild your trust and authority in your party, he completely ignored my question. Instead, he launched into a long list of Labour’s achievements in his first year: 4 million extra NHS appointments; free school meals to half a million more children; more free childcare; the biggest upgrade in employment rights for a generation; and the US, EU and India free trade deals.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Starmer defends reaction to Reeves crying in PMQs

I can understand the point he was making and his frustration that his achievements are being lost in the maelstrom of the political drama. But equally, this is politics, and he is the prime minister. This is his story to tell, and blowing up your welfare reform on the anniversary week of your government is not the way to do it.

Is Starmer failing to articulate his mission?

For Starmer himself, he will do what I have seen him do before when he’s been on the ropes, dig in, learn from the errors and try to come back stronger. I have heard him in recent days talk about how he has always been underestimated and then proved he can do it – he is approaching this first term with the same grit.

If you ask his team, they will tell you that the prime minister and this government is still suffering from the unending pessimism that has pervaded our national consciousness; the sense politics doesn’t work for working people and the government is not on their side.

Read more from Sky News:
Analysis: PM’s authority damaged
Numbers behind housing pledge
Fiscal rules are silly but important

Starmer knows what he needs to do: restore the social contract, so if you work hard you should get on in life. The spending review and its massive capital investment, the industrial strategy and strategic defence review – three pieces of work dedicated to investment and job creation – are all geared to trying to rebuild the country and give people a brighter future.

But equally, government has been, admit insiders, harder than they thought as they grapple with multiple crises facing the country – be that public services, prisons, welfare.

It has also lacked direction. Sir Keir would do well to focus on following his Northern Star. I think he has one – to give working people a better life and ordinary people the chance to fulfil their potential.

But somehow, the prime minister is failing to articulate his mission, and he knows that. When I asked him at the G7 summit in Canada what his biggest mistake of the first year was, he told me: “We haven’t always told our story as well as we should.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Beth Rigby asks the PM to reflect on a year in office

I go back to the Keir Starmer of July 5 2024. He came in on a landslide, he promised to change the country, he spoke of the lack of trust and the need to prove to the public that the government could make their lives better through actions not words.

In this second year, he is betting that the legislation he has passed and strategies he has launched will drive that process of change, and in doing so, build back belief.

But it is equally true that his task has become harder these past few weeks. He has spilled so much blood over welfare for so little gain, his first task is to reset the operation to better manage the party and rebuild support.

But bigger than that, he needs to find a way to not just tell his government’s story but sell his government’s story. He has four years left.

Continue Reading

Politics

Did Keir Starmer screw up his own anniversary?

Published

on

By

Did Keir Starmer screw up his own anniversary?

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Sir Keir Starmer wanted to be talking about what he sees as Labour’s achievements after 12 months in government and his 10-year plan for the NHS.

But, after another dramatic policy U-turn and the sight of his own chancellor crying at PMQs, when he kept his support for her slightly vague, Beth Rigby, Harriet Harman and Ruth Davidson discuss if his start in office has been shattered by this week.

They also wonder if the solution to make relations with his own MPs a bit easier would be to make better use of Angela Rayner.

Remember, you can also watch us on YouTube.

Continue Reading

Trending