Boris Johnson wanted authoritarian Covid rules, inquiry hears
Boris Johnson pushed for a more "ruthless, authoritarian approach" towards people who refused to self-isolate during the pandemic, the Uk's former scientific adviser has told the Covid inquiry.The instinct of policy makers was to favour "punitive measures" over financial support, according to Lord Patrick Vallance who spoke to the PM throughout the crisis and appeared alongside him on TV briefings.Diary entries written by Lord Vallance during that time revealed officials "always want[ed] to go for stick, not carrot".Lord Vallance has said his diary entries were informal personal reflections and "late night musings", never intended for publication.
He was giving evidence to the sixth part of the Covid inquiry, which is investigating test, trace and quarantine policies.During 90 minutes of questioning, he was shown a series of entries from his evening diaries from the first year of the pandemic.On 12 August 2020, he wrote about a meeting with the prime minister and his senior aides, including then chief adviser Dominic Cummings and cabinet secretary Simon Case."Instinct of this crew is to go for more enforcement and punitive measures," he wrote."We suggested more carrot and incentives [were] required to make people take a test, self-isolate etc, but they always want to go for stick not carrot."Asked who he was referring to in that entry, Lord Vallance said it would have been the "decision-makers for policy".In another entry, on 25 September 2020, as Covid cases were rising once again, he quoted Boris Johnson as saying: "We need a lot more punishments and a lot more closing down".And in a further entry on 7 January 2021, just after the start of the third nationwide lockdown, he wrote: "PM says: 'We haven't been ruthless enough. We need to force more isolation. I favour a more authoritarian approach.'"However, he also added: "Rather late in the day, the PM is understanding that incentives (or removal of disincentives) need to be in place to help people."
On 28 September 2020, ministers introduced a legal duty for those who had tested positive for Covid or were contacted by the test-and-trace service to self-isolate in England. It was announced that fines of between £1,000 and £10,000 would be imposed on repeat offenders.Test-and-trace support payments of £500 were also offered for those on lower incomes.Sir Patrick said it was "important to remember" the purpose of mass testing was to identify potentially infectious individuals who could self-isolate and "if isolation isn't happening, then testing isn't really doing what it's supposed to be doing".When the new rules were introduced, Boris Johnson said the public needed to do "all it could to control the spread of the virus" and prevent the most vulnerable from becoming infected.
Earlier, Matt Hancock told the inquiry it was "crucial" the UK should retain its ability to rapidly scale-up mass testing for a new disease in any future pandemic.The former health secretary said he was concerned the testing system set up in 2020 was now being dismantled, making it much harder to respond."The critical thing is that we absolutely must, as a nation, be ready to radically expand capacity once a test is developed," he said. "We were not last time."
Asymptomatic infections
Mr Hancock was asked about a letter he was sent, on 14 April 2020, by two Nobel prize winning scientists, Sir Paul Nurse and Sir Peter Ratcliffe, urging that all healthcare workers be offered regular tests for the virus.In evidence last week, Prof Nurse said his letter had been "ignored" by the secretary of state for three months, before he received an "anodyne response" from another civil servant.Regular testing of care home workers didn't start until the summer of 2020 in England, while NHS staff and other social care workers were not offered weekly tests until November of that year.Mr Hancock said he had not seen the letter personally and by that point, the government was already putting in place policies to tackle the transmission of the virus by people without clear Covid symptoms."The argument that is implied is that, somehow, somebody eminent who won a Nobel Prize knew something and we ignored it. It's just not true. It's not what happened," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
18 minutes ago
- Reuters
Ukrainian attack damaged 10% of Russia's strategic bombers, Germany says
BERLIN, June 7 (Reuters) - A Ukrainian drone attack last weekend likely damaged around 10% of Russia's strategic bomber fleet and hit some of the aircraft as they were being prepared for strikes on Ukraine, a senior German military official said. "According to our assessment, more than a dozen aircraft were damaged, TU-95 and TU-22 strategic bombers as well as A-50 surveillance planes," German Major General Christian Freuding said in a YouTube podcast reviewed by Reuters ahead of its publication later on Saturday. The affected A-50s, which function similarly to NATO's AWACS planes by providing aerial situational awareness, were likely non-operational when they were hit, said the general who coordinates Berlin's military aid to Kyiv and is in close touch with the Ukrainian defence ministry. "We believe that they can no longer be used for spare parts. This is a loss, as only a handful of these aircraft exist," he said. "As for the long-range bomber fleet, 10% of it has been damaged in the attack according to our assessment." The United States estimates that Ukraine's audacious drone attack hit as many as 20 Russian warplanes, destroying around 10 of them, two U.S. officials told Reuters, and experts say Moscow will take years to replace the affected planes. Despite the losses, Freuding does not see any immediate reduction of Russian strikes against Ukraine, noting that Moscow still retains 90% of its strategic bombers which can launch ballistic and cruise missiles in addition to dropping bombs. "But there is, of course, an indirect effect as the remaining planes will need to fly more sorties, meaning they will be worn out faster, and, most importantly, there is a huge psychological impact." Freuding said Russia had felt safe in its vast territory, which also explained why there was little protection for the aircraft. "After this successful operation, this no longer holds true. Russia will need to ramp up the security measures." According to Freuding, Ukraine attacked two air fields around 100 kilometres (62 miles) from Moscow, as well as the Olenya air field in the Murmansk region and the Belaya air field, with drones trained with the help of artificial intelligence. A fifth attack on the Ukrainka air field near the Chinese border failed, he said. The bombers that were hit were part of Russia's so-called nuclear triad which enables nuclear weapons deployment by air, sea and ground, he added.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Warning UK's housing crisis will deepen if Reeves makes further cuts in spending review
It comes as the struggle between the Treasury and Angela Rayner 's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government over its budget continues, just days before Ms Reeves is set to outline the spending plans until the next election on Wednesday. With no agreement having been reached on housing, the chief executive of one of Britain's largest housing associations has raised the alarm that of a 'cliff edge' over building more homes – which means money is set to run out by 2026. The warning from Fiona Fletcher-Smith, chief executive of L&Q and until last week chair of the G15 group of London housing associations, comes as the Local Government Association (LGA) has warned that 51 per cent of councils are now running deficits on their housing budgets. Homeless charities are also warning of an impending crisis with new supply unable to keep up with increasing demand for social housing. Crisis has pointed out that over the past 10 years there has been a net loss of more than 180,000 social homes in England. Currently, 1.33 million households in England are currently stuck on council waiting lists for a social home. Ms Fletcher-Smith explained that the problem began with George Osborne's austerity budgets in 2010 when he slashed 63 per cent of the capital budget to build new homes. She said he then 'welched' on a deal to allow them to make up for the loss by charging CPI inflation plus 1 per cent in rent. which housing associations and councils now want restored for a decade. This will allow them to borrow money to build as it comes through as guaranteed income. The cumulative effect now means that housing associations no longer have the funds to build projects. Ms Fletcher-Smith said: 'Housing decisions are so long, it's not just planning permission, you've got to get all utilities, everything else lined up to build. It's a five to seven years to run in to build housing. We could see from our own predictions, we were just going to go off cliff edge, by 2025/2026.' The sector is also still struggling with the impact of the Grenfell fire tragedy in 2017, with thousands of homes now subject to problems with cladding which is costing them £2.6bn in London alone. In London alone, £4 million a month is being spent on 'keeping people in temporary accommodation' because homes with cladding are too dangerous to return to and clogged courts mean legal cases to fix the problem are taking years. Ms Fletcher-Smith also noted that the 'combination of Brexit, Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine' has hit the sector not least with inflation which saw building materials go up as much as 30 per cent well above the 11 per cent peak of the headline rate. There are now fears that Ms Reeves and the Treasury will force cuts to the housing budget to balance the books as the chancellor seeks to ringfence health spending, increase defence to 2.5 per cent of GDP and water down proposals on benefit cuts as well as U-turn on ending the winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners. The deputy prime minister is leading a charge to protect budgets and instead push for a series of wealth taxes on big corporations and millionaires. But this has been resisted by Ms Reeves. However, the fears over housing are shared by homeless charities who are calling for 90,000 new social housing homes to be built per year. Matt Downie, chief executive of Crisis, said: 'This spending review is an opportunity for significant investment to start to see homelessness levels come down. 'Small tweaks aren't enough to fix the problems we face.' Mairi MacRae, director of policy and campaigns at Shelter, said: 'With homelessness at a record high and councils spending huge chunks of their budgets just to keep families off the streets, now is the time to invest in building social rent homes, not cut back." The issue is also vexing Labour backbenchers looking at the party's slide in the polls. One Labour MP said cuts in this area would cause upset among backbenchers, especially those with seats in areas with councils that are already on the verge of collapse. Another pointed out that Labour's flagship housing pledge 'means nothing if the current stock of social housing suffers" as a result of cuts. The government provides financial support to local authorities for social housing provision, including funding for new builds, repairs, and improvements. Commenting on the finding that 51 per cent of councils running a deficit with housing, the LGA warned: 'These trends are not sustainable. There is a growing risk to the financial sustainability of some councils' HRAs, and revenue pressures in councils' HRAs are now being passed directly into their HRA capital programmes.' In the Autumn Statement, the government announced over £5 billion total housing investment in 2025/26 to boost supply, including a £500m extension to the current Affordable Homes Programme which runs out in 2026. At the Spring Statement, the government announced a down payment of £2bn for a successor programme. To make it cheaper for councils to finance new development, the government has extended the preferential borrowing rate available for council house building from the Public Works Loan Board until the end of 2025/26.
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Asylum seeker suspected of recruiting child soldiers can stay in Britain
An asylum seeker suspected of recruiting child soldiers for the Tamil Tigers has won a human rights case to stay in Britain. The Sri Lankan has been allowed to remain in the UK despite claims he had 'enlisted children under the age of 15' in the militant group. The French justice system previously ruled that he should be denied asylum in France due to the allegations, an immigration tribunal heard. However, British judges ruled that there was not enough evidence to say the allegations were true, and he has been granted refugee status. The Home Office, which attempted to deport him, tried to fight the ruling, but lost its appeal. The identity of the migrant has not been revealed as he was granted anonymity by the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. The hearing, in London, was told that before he arrived in the UK, the Sri Lankan was alleged to have recruited child soldiers for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) - also known as the Tamil Tigers. The LTTE is a militant terrorist organisation founded in Sri Lanka. It was heard that the unnamed Sri Lankan was working for the Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO) - a refugee charity - but was secretly supplying information. Before arriving in the UK, the French asylum court - the Cour nationale du droit d'asile - found that he 'ought to be excluded from a grant of asylum under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention due to his alleged involvement in war crimes, in this case the alleged recruitment of children'. In Britain, the Home Office refused him refugee status, but in 2023, he won an appeal at the First-tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber against the decision. At the time, the judge found that the Home Office 'had not shown serious grounds for concluding that [the Sri Lankan] was guilty of the war crime of conscription or enlistment of children under the age of 15 or using them to participate actively in hostilities'. The judge at the 2023 hearing concluded: 'I am not satisfied even on the evidence of his own admissions, accurate or otherwise, to the French that this goes far enough to show that the [Sri Lankan] was effectively collecting information which he knew was going to be misused, and misused specifically for the recruitment of child soldiers under the age of 15. 'Nor am I satisfied that there are serious reasons for considering on all the evidence adduced that the [respondent] has been shown to have knowingly materially assisted in the recruitment of child soldiers under the age of 15, by the work done by the TRO in gathering information, possibly subsequently used by the LTTE for that purpose.' The Home Office appealed that decision at the Upper Tribunal, but lost its case. Home Office lawyers argued that the judge in 2023 did not attach enough weight to the French court decision. Lawyers argued that the judge 'ought to have followed the French Court and that inadequate reasons were given by the judge for not doing so'. But, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Adrian Seelhoff ruled that the 2023 hearing considered the French decision 'extensively'. Judge Seelhoff said: 'The Judge assessed that evidence to see if it supported the [Home Office's] case that [the Sri Lankan], whilst working for the TRO, supplied details which the LTTE used to recruit child soldiers. '[The Home Office's] position before us was not that the judge was bound to follow the French court decision, but that he had not given adequate reasons for reaching a different decision or that he failed to attach weight to the decision. 'We find that the judge did give adequate reasons for not following that decision, and for the weight he attached to it and that accordingly there is no error of law in the decision under appeal.'
