Covid rules should have been same across UK
Rules to try to limit the spread of Covid during the pandemic should have been the same across the UK, a former cabinet minister has said.
Simon Hart has claimed "politics in the decision-making" led to different restrictions on things like wearing face masks in Wales and England after being agreed by their respective governments.
"I just didn't feel that decisions were being made purely on the basis of disease control and risk management," said the former Welsh secretary and MP.
The Welsh government has been asked to comment.
Lockdown saved my life, says woman with OCD
Man dubbed 'the Welsh Captain Tom' dies aged 95
New hospital mask-wearing rules over flu concerns
"I do think the UK wide consistency would have been much, much simpler from the point of view of trying to impart a very clear but important message to residents of the UK," he said.
Hart was the secretary of state for Wales from December 2019 to July 2022 and a Conservative MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire from 2010 to 2024.
He also served as parliamentary secretary to the Treasury [chief whip] between October 2022 and July 2024 and has just published his book, Ungovernable: The Political Diaries of a Chief Whip.
Hart told BBC Radio Wales' Sunday Supplement it included a "rather depressing reminder of some of the difficulties that we all encountered" during the pandemic and "if we ever have to do that kind of thing again, is there a better way of doing it?"
He said it was "made much more complicated by the fact that there were different rules in different places".
Restrictions were drawn up by a Conservative government at Westminster and in Wales the rules were set by a Labour government in the Senedd.
Restrictions were imposed for more than two years after lockdown began in March 2020.
By January 2022, a lecturer in psychology said people were suffering "fatigue" and "uncertainty" over the varying Covid rules.
At that point, nightclubs were closed in Wales, with limits on hospitality, sports events and who people could meet, but in England restrictions were much less severe.
Mr Hart recalled train announcements being read out while he and other rail passengers were travelling through the Severn Tunnel to highlight a change in rules on wearing masks either side of the Wales-England border.
"More and more, as we went through the pandemic, I came to the conclusion that there was a lot of politics in the decision-making," he said.
"I just didn't feel that decisions were being made purely on the basis of disease control and risk management.
"Some of the speeches and comments that were being made by ministers in Cardiff were deliberately designed to drive a wedge between the two governments.
"And to cast just a degree of doubt into the minds of residents of Wales that the decisions being taken by UK government might have been at fault."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
32 minutes ago
- USA Today
'I refuse to give up': Michigan researchers, health officials grapple with funding cuts
'I refuse to give up': Michigan researchers, health officials grapple with funding cuts Show Caption Hide Caption Video: MSU breast cancer researcher Jamie Bernard talks about funding uncertainty MSU breast cancer researcher Jamie Bernard talks about federal funding uncertainty on Thursday, May 8, 2025, at her lab in East Lansing. Michigan public health officers say they've had to cut services and lay off workers after the Trump administration slashed funding, affecting their ability to work to stop the spread of disease. Scientists from the University of Michigan and Michigan State University say federal cuts to their research could halt development for new cancer treatments and eviscerate the scientific workforce. Using words like "devastating," "heartbreaking," and "shortsighted," Michigan public health leaders and researchers at the state's largest universities described the effects of President Donald Trump's efforts to slash federal government spending — through executive orders, cuts to federal grants, and stop work orders — and the wide-reaching fallout. Some local health departments have laid off workers and cut back on the services they can provide at regional laboratories and at community and in-school health clinics, and have seen disruptions in their ability to stop the spread of infectious disease, said Norm Hess, executive director of the Michigan Association for Local Public Health. When the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revoked $11.4 billion in COVID-19-related grants in late March, the effects were felt across Michigan in ways that might not have been anticipated, he said. 'While everyone agrees the emergency response phase of COVID-19 is over, the funding streams created for pandemic response have been supporting laboratories monitoring other diseases around the state, from legionella to tuberculosis to measles, as well as water quality inspections and other sampling work,' Hess said. 'Federal leaders rescinded those grants, clearly thinking it was a responsible way to recover money that was being misspent. Instead, it's a great example of unintended consequences. Everyone agrees government should spend public dollars efficiently and effectively, but it appears they did not check to see what they were actually eliminating when cutting grants that had 'COVID' on the label.' Although Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined other states in challenging many of the Trump administration's cuts to federal public health and university research funding, including the $11.4 billion in COVID-19-related grants, Hess said it's too risky for local health departments to count on money that may or may not be awarded to them in the end. "You can't turn it off, and then if money comes, turn it back on," he said. Cuts hit research on the science of aging When he took office, Trump pledged to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in federal spending, and "make America healthy again" by shifting priorities of the nation's top health agencies and taking aim at research and programs that focused on diversity, equity and inclusion. But medical researchers at Michigan State University and the University of Michigan say his administration's abrupt cuts to funding for scientific studies, clinical trials and training programs have all but gutted their life's work and could halt the development of new treatments for diseases like cancer as well as eviscerate the future scientific workforce. University of Michigan psychology professor Toni Antonucci lost the $13 million federal grant that supported her research on health disparities among aging Americans. It focused on minority populations, including African Americans, and comes at a moment in history when the U.S. population is older than it ever has been and is growing increasingly diverse. "I have never thought that politics should be involved in research, and, unfortunately, this is clearly the case here," said Antonucci, who has worked at U-M since the 1970s. "We were focusing on our most vulnerable populations, and I think that's the reason that the money was ... rescinded. "It shows a kind of shortsightedness and, in a way, vindictiveness. ... My focus was on ... how can the social relations that people have improve their health? What kinds of relationships are positive for people or negative for people? How do we increase the positive, and reduce the negative? "What are the kinds of things that universally predict better health, longer longevity? ... The point is, if you know what's influencing different groups, it gives you some insight on how to intervene both with that group and with other groups." Now, she said, that data will be lost. "If a government has policies that they want to enact, regardless of the data, then this is what you do," Antonucci said. "You just make sure there are no data. But just because you don't collect the data, that doesn't mean the association isn't still there." U-M professor: Slashed grants suggest 'you just don't matter' Gary Harper, a U-M professor of health behavior and health equity, learned in late March that his nearly $1.15 million five-year grant from the National Institutes of Health had been rescinded. "It's devastating," said Harper. "I am an openly gay man, and have been involved in activism, research, clinical work, and policy work in the HIV field for 40 years, starting out in 1985 as an old-time activist at a time when we were burying our friends every week. ... This is the first time in the history of my academic career that I've been without federal research or training funds." Harper is co-director of the SOAR at U-M, which stands for Student Opportunities for AIDS/HIV Research. It's a two-year intensive mentoring program that provides HIV-related research opportunities to undergraduate students, propelling them toward graduate school, and, eventually, the HIV research workforce. Many of those students are LGBTQ+ themselves, have disabilities, or come from low-income backgrounds, he said, but Harper noted that the program is open to anyone. "I'm a strong believer that we need to be making sure that we mentor researchers who reflect the communities that are most impacted," Harper said. More: Federal research cuts would rock Michigan economy, halt clinical trials, those affected say More: Trump's budget cuts could cost Michigan universities more than $200 million Discovering that the NIH canceled SOAR's grant funding "ripped me apart," Harper said. "We have one more cohort to get through their senior year." He said he won't let the Trump administration win and cancel the program before they graduate. "Basically, what they're saying is, 'We don't want to spend any money on you because you just don't matter,' " Harper said. " 'Your life has no value.' ... Well, I refuse to give up on them." Harper and SOAR's co-director are scrambling together the money themselves to pay for the final year of the program. Slowly, he said, that is coming together, but his other work through the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network (ATN) for HIV/AIDS Intervention has also been targeted by the federal cuts. A study on transgender youths was canceled, he said, and funding for the leadership group that oversees equity and inclusion in all ATN studies also was eliminated. He also lost grant funding to study gay and bisexual men in Kenya living with HIV. Still, he said, "I'm not going to let this get me down. "I try and show power and strength and resilience to the students, to give them hope that this, too, shall pass. This is a moment in time, but this is not your entire life. ... Your lives do matter. You are special and you are perfect, just the way you are." Breast cancer prevention studies in limbo The Trump administration isn't taking aim solely at research that fits its definition of DEI, said Jamie Bernard, an associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Michigan State University. "What I don't really think is being well communicated is that cancer research is also being threatened," said Bernard, who began studying interventions to prevent breast cancer in 2016, when her mother, Pamela O'Brien, was diagnosed with the disease at 61 years old. "This is something that Democrats and Republicans have always supported. In fact, we've come so far in the treatment of breast cancer due to federal funding, we diagnose women earlier. There's lots of options for treatment, and really, this research has saved a lot of lives and brought health care costs down." Her work is now focused on the environmental and lifestyle factors that can increase a woman's risk of getting aggressive breast cancers. "Not all breast cancers are curable, so that's what I really set off to focus on," she said, explaining that her work involves understanding how to kill cancer cells that are resistant to treatment and discovering new drug therapies. Earlier this year, she applied to renew a $2.07 million federal grant funded by the National Institutes of Health along with a new, $2.79 million grant, but both have been held up for months in a cloud of uncertainty. The initial reviews of her grants were postponed but eventually got through the first stage of the process; they now await the second step of review. There remain no guarantees. "How are they going to choose what they fund?" she said. "I don't know what's going to happen, really. So, we are in a time of uncertainty. Grant funding has always been uncertain. It's always been competitive, but there's always been a process and an infrastructure that researchers have relied on." Bernard runs a research lab at MSU, where a team of scientists are working to 'stop breast cancer from ever starting in the first place or prevent it so much that you've delayed it and you die of some other natural cause before you have to deal with cancer," she said. "I am in a place where I don't know if I should be accepting students in the fall. What's my next move? Am I still allowed to study what I've been studying? So it's a confusing time, a frustrating time, a time of high anxiety in our department of pharmacology and toxicology.' Bernard said the NIH canceled a grant for a graduate student from Puerto Rico who is Hispanic, and had applied through a mechanism that provided funding for predoctoral students who are disabled, identify as Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, or who are from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. "Just simply because she was a minority, the grant mechanism that she applied with, they withdrew it," Bernard said. "The white woman in my lab, her grant is going to be reviewed. ... It's so awful." The work they're doing, she said, "really should be bipartisan, nonpartisan — not even partisan. It's freaking cancer research." Ph.D. student reexamines future in scientific research The political climate is chasing Alex Chapman, a Ph.D. student at MSU who is studying migraines and pain, away from a career in academia. Chapman, 24, who is originally from Richmond, Virginia, secured a federal grant studying a neuropeptide that's upregulated in people with migraines, before Trump took office in January. Many of her friends and colleagues haven't been so lucky. "Science is being so vilified that I'm considering careers in other places or different avenues because it's just hard to see a future in a place that doesn't value science at all," she said. "It's heartbreaking. ... My career options are kind of dwindling, and the more time that passes, the more fellowships and different opportunities just keep becoming defunded," Chapman said, noting that a fellowship she was eyeing through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been axed. She considered shifting toward public policy work, helping government leaders understand "why we should fund pain research," but then she attended a symposium and heard a woman who works in public policy speak about the cuts there, too. "She was like, 'This is a great fellowship. It's been defunded. This was an awesome fellowship. It's been defunded,' " Chapman said. When entrepreneur Elon Musk, who headed the new Department of Government Efficiency early in the Trump administration, criticized the use of federal dollars on scientific studies of legumes and aggression in hamsters, Chapman said, it showed that he couldn't see the full impact of the work. "If you just simplify it like that, maybe it does seem silly, but you're looking at the small picture," she said. "The point of research is to zoom out and look at the bigger picture. When you understand the best process of planting beans or why certain strains of corn are more susceptible to different fungi, you help people more effectively and efficiently plant food. This will help us in the face of climate change. "If you understand why a hamster is aggressive after ingesting a certain substance, you understand the role of that substance and how it could potentially affect humans." That small-picture view — and the cuts made because of it — could have generational impacts on the United States and the world, Chapman said. "This isn't just shutting down one study that focuses on hamsters fighting," she said. "It's preventing a new generation of scientists from coming into the (field), which is going to stunt our growth as a nation, which is going to prevent new ideas from happening, which is going to lead to ... horrible damage that would take years, if not decades, to recover. "People are afraid to come out and criticize this because of the way the government has treated them, especially foreign students. When it gets to the point where the government can strike fear in your heart if you speak out against them, especially about something regarding science, it's a very scary place to be." Local public health departments rattled, services cut Nick Derusha, the director and health officer of the LMAS District Health Department, which also includes Luce and Mackinac counties, said his part of the eastern Upper Peninsula has been rattled by a Trump administration stop-work order that means there's no money to run clinics that provide medicine like methadone to help people wean off opioid drugs and reduce the risk of overdose deaths in Alger and Schoolcraft counties. "We take a really holistic approach to that program," Derusha said. "We're not just providing medication-assisted treatment. We have peer recovery coaches. We have community health workers. We have a lot of staff that are there to support them in many other ways, not just the medication. "When funding is abruptly eliminated like that, we can't just drop people off the caseload. We needed to find a way for them to be able to continue to receive services or some type of off-ramp. We worked with the local hospital, and we agreed for three more months, which is kind of nearing the end here, to continue to provide those services, absent the funding. But the long-term ability of us to do that is not likely." In addition, Derusha said the LMAS department lost $512,000 a year to pay for a courier system for its laboratory services. Because the district is so sprawling — it covers four U.P. counties — when test samples need to be shipped to the regional lab in Luce County, ordinary mail often doesn't get them delivered quickly enough. Without the courier system, it means slower results for important public health testing, he said, which could delay treatments and lead to poorer outcomes. The LMAS District Health Department isn't alone. The Mid-Michigan Health Department, which includes Clinton, Gratiot and Montcalm counties, announced in April it will no longer investigate or treat latent tuberculosis infections because of "funding cuts and workforce limitations." Mental health services for school-age children are being cut, too, said Andrea Cole, president of the Ethel and James Flinn Foundation, a Detroit-based nonprofit dedicated to improving the quality, scope, and delivery of mental health services in Michigan. A $1 billion grant was terminated through the Department of Education in late April to pay for in-school social workers, counselors and other mental health professionals — even though 70% of children who receive mental health services get them through their schools, she said. "A lot of the federal cuts were to the most vulnerable and underserved populations," Cole said. "Schools are faced with the possibility of laying off those people that they hired under that grant if they don't have funding to continue it." And the students will be left without that critical mental health support when "they need it more than ever," Cole said. Hess said all of these cuts, along with proposed legislation — the Big, Beautiful Bill Act, which has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and now is under consideration in the U.S. Senate — that would slash Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, and a state Senate budget proposal that also seeks to trim funding even more, public health in Michigan could dramatically change. More: Whitmer: Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' could cost Michigan $900 million a year for food stamps More: 700,000 Michigan residents could lose health insurance under Medicaid cuts, report shows "We don't want to give the impression that the sky is falling, and that public health is going to pack up and go home," Hess said. "We've been here for 100 years, and we've seen ups and downs over the years. Health officers are used to kind of making things work, but this is sort of a unique situation. "Community residents are really going to feel this if all of these things that we are watching come to fruition. Public health will not look the same in their communities, in most places." Contact Kristen Shamus: kshamus@ Subscribe to the Detroit Free Press.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
What will the Spending Review mean for NI public services?
Next week the Chancellor Rachel Reeves will reveal the outcome of her Spending Review. It will allocate money to day-to-day public services for the next three years. It will also set infrastructure budgets for the next four years. The review will directly impact on what Stormont Ministers have to spend on public services in Northern Ireland. Last year Reeves set what is known as the "spending envelope" – the amount by which total government spending will change in a given period. Day-to-day spending is planned to grow by an average of 1.2% above the rate of inflation each year for the next three years. Infrastructure spending is planned to grow by 1.3% above inflation a year over the next four years. These are much lower growth rates than this year and last year, reflecting the new government's "emergency" injection of cash into the health service and public sector pay deals. On Wednesday the Chancellor will break it down further, making allocations to each central government department. The precise allocation of this money matters for Stormont's spending plans. More than 90% of what Stormont ministers have to spend comes from the Treasury through what is known as "the block grant." The increase in the block grant is worked out using a calculation known as the Barnett formula, which is based on the annual changes in UK central government departmental budgets. It gives Stormont an equivalent spending increase for the size of the NI population, adjusted for the extent to which each service is devolved. Some services, like health, are almost entirely devolved but defence is not devolved. If the government decides it is going to spend more on defence at the expense of other services that will have an impact on the amount of extra money in the Stormont pot. In simple terms: If the UK Department of Health sees its budget increase by £100m, then Northern Ireland would get approximately £3m extra. If the Ministry of Defence budget increases by £100m Stormont does not get anything extra. When devolution was restored in 2024 the government agreed a financial package which included an automatic top-up of any money awarded by the Barnett formula. The government was persuaded that the level of need in Northern Ireland means it requires spending of £124 per head for every £100 per head spent in England. As Northern Ireland was funded below that level, the government said that in future every £1 that comes through the Barnett formula will now come with an extra 24p. That will apply until the overall level of funding need is reached. The independent Fiscal Council has estimated that will be worth £815m over five years. The government said the size of the top up could be reviewed if "independent and credible sources" provide evidence. To that end the Executive commissioned a study from the economist Prof Gerry Holtham, an expert in the devolution of public finances. The BBC understands that his work has come back with a range of possible funding need. The central estimates are £123 per head, for every £100 spent in England, if agricultural spending is excluded and £128 per head if agriculture forms part of the calculation. If the Treasury is persuaded to accept the higher end of the range it will be worth tens of millions of pounds extra over the next five years. The devolution financial package also brought a large dollop of one-off UK government funding, largely to pay for public sector pay deals. However that creates a cliff-edge drop in Stormont funding of about £500m in 2026/27 when that short term money runs out. The government committed to review "concerns about 2026-27 funding" at the Spending Review. The Fiscal Council has suggested options to tackle the cliff edge could include more one-off funding or setting a new, higher baseline for Stormont's budget. However, it is also possible that the normal operation of Spending Review will allocate enough money to largely remove the cliff edge. The Chancellor will be allocating trillions of pounds in the Spending Review but it is a tiny fraction of that which may have most political impact in Northern Ireland. There is a growing expectation that the UK government will come up with additional money for the construction of a new GAA stadium at Casement Park in Belfast. That project has been bogged down in labyrinthine planning and funding issues. The GAA official leading the project has told the BBC he is cautiously optimistic that the Spending Review will include a new financial contribution for the redevelopment project. Spending Review: When is it and what might Rachel Reeves announce? Reeves admits some will lose out in spending review
5 hours ago
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit The Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600 million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lieutenant Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.'
