Cancelling non-urgent remedy of sufferers through the Covid disaster was the “least dangerous” of a collection of “terrible choices”, Matt Hancock has mentioned.
In his third and at occasions combative look on the Covid-19 inquiry, by which he repeatedly interrupted the inquiry counsel, Jacqueline Carey KC, the previous well being secretary defended his resolution to permit the NHS to postpone routine remedy and care from April 2020.
Requested if he thought it was the correct resolution, Hancock mentioned: “Properly, clearly reluctantly, however you’re confronted with a collection of terrible choices – that was the least dangerous.”
He mentioned the “total level is, that we didn’t have a collapse within the system”.
However Heather Hallett, who’s chairing the inquiry, questioned Hancock’s assertion that the well being service was obtainable to all through the disaster, in keeping with want, mentioning that sufferers requiring most cancers screening, a hip substitute or different surgical procedure couldn’t entry the care that they wanted.
Hancock insisted that the NHS was not “overwhelmed” and that it was “higher to delay some non-urgent operations” to guard the well being service and the sufferers themselves as a result of, individuals have been “extra prone to catch Covid in a hospital than in nearly another setting”.
Earlier, Hancock advised the inquiry that he “ruffled some feathers” defending the NHS from political “interference” through the disaster and that he had been in a “battle” with different elements of presidency that needed Covid measures to be relaxed.
He mentioned that a part of his job was to “present a defend” from the “individuals being troublesome” in No 10, however that interference created “unimaginable difficulties” over testing individuals for Covid-19.
Hancock additionally claimed that the previous first minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon precipitated “all kinds of difficulties” because the pandemic unfolded.
The previous well being secretary was requested originally of the listening to on Thursday to what extent frontline employees had been protected. Whereas the federal government did “every part we probably may”, he mentioned, “does that imply, in a system that employs 1.4 million individuals within the NHS, with one other round two and a half million in social care, that each resolution was good? In fact it wasn’t.”
And he admitted that in England, the NHS got here inside “six or seven hours” of operating out of robes and another PPE. Whereas there was by no means a “nationwide scarcity” of PPE for well being staff, “in some locations, they did run out – and it was terrible”. The NHS wanted to study classes and guarantee higher stockpiles for the longer term, he added.
Responding to Hancock’s proof, James Telfer, on behalf of Covid-19 Bereaved Households for Justice UK, accused the previous MP of dodging any blame.
“Within the wake of catastrophic failures, which contributed to the UK having the second worst loss of life toll in western Europe, Matt Hancock stays extra involved about defending his legacy than serving to the UK to guarantee that the hellish scenes which performed out in our overwhelmed hospitals through the pandemic are by no means, ever repeated,” Telfer, whose mom died of Covid, mentioned.
“Within the face of indeniable proof that our family members have been refused care due to their age or disabilities, as a result of blanket [do not resuscitate] notices have been positioned on them no matter their bodily capability, and proof that the NHS was understaffed and under-resourced to the diploma that it couldn’t preserve the general public secure, Matt Hancock defends his declare that the NHS was by no means overwhelmed, saying that it was essential to ensure the general public felt secure to make use of it.”
Our morning electronic mail breaks down the important thing tales of the day, telling you what’s taking place and why it issues
Privateness Discover: Newsletters might comprise data about charities, on-line adverts, and content material funded by outdoors events. For extra data see our Privateness Coverage. We use Google reCaptcha to guard our web site and the Google Privateness Coverage and Phrases of Service apply.
after e-newsletter promotion
The BMA council chair, Prof Philip Banfield, mentioned that for Hancock to “triumphantly” say that the NHS was not overwhelmed and that this was an important success for himself and the federal government was “extremely galling” for BMA members who labored on the frontlines through the disaster and have been accountable for stopping well being companies from collapsing totally.
He mentioned: “Big quantities of healthcare have been rationed and sufferers who usually would have acquired remedy outdoors of a pandemic didn’t. Huge swathes of care have been cancelled to make method for all however probably the most pressing Covid circumstances. This included many most cancers therapies. That is the very definition of rationing.
“In the meantime, many individuals stayed away from hospitals and died at house as an alternative.
“Our members – docs who labored day and night time to take care of sufferers – continuously spoke out about being unable to supply the extent of care they knew sufferers wanted they usually have been educated to supply. Staffing ratios have been reduce and requirements have been decreased to cope with sheer demand. Medical doctors and our colleagues have been overwhelmed, bodily and emotionally, and nonetheless bear the psychological scars of this ethical harm immediately.”
Helga Pile, the pinnacle of well being at Unison, mentioned Hancock’s legacy was “how not to reply to a nationwide disaster. He ought to maintain his head in disgrace for deserting well being and care employees of their hour of want.”
Security package was both unavailable or unfit for objective, and care staff and people they sorted died, she added.
“It’s time Matt Hancock took accountability for the chaos precipitated and the lives misplaced whereas he was in cost.”
