Allison Pearson
Within days of Partygate investigator Sue Gray being announced as Sir Keir Starmer's new chief of staff, there was an urgent question in Parliament. And rightly so. When it comes to judging the conduct of a Tory government, the civil service is about as impartial as a Taliban commander at a girls' reading group. But was that really the national question that most urgently needed an answer?
For eight days now, The Telegraph has been publishing the most breathtaking, scathing stories about the abuse of power (and "science") by Matt Hancock and his cabal during the pandemic.
I don't know about you, but after reading so much about their silly political posturing and their blatant disregard for, especially, children and the elderly, my Outrage Bucket is empty and I have been reduced to vomiting bile.
And what has been the response to these horrors within the House of Commons? Not a lull.
Fortunately, the Prime Minister has finally made it clear that he is not happy in any case. Today (Tuesday) Downing Street issued a rebuke.
But elsewhere, the deafening silence from the majority of politicians, and parts of the media, can only be professional embarrassment, perhaps even shame. I hope they feel at least a shred of shame for their failure to hold the legislature accountable during an unprecedented and frightening confiscation of our civil liberties.
Her Majesty's opposition not only failed in that solemn duty, like many influential broadcasters, they actively encouraged the government to impose ever more unproven draconian restrictions.
The WhatsApp messages revealed in The Telegraph's Lockdown Files are not exactly a lack of material for our democratic representatives to shout about. A new jaw-dropper every day.
I particularly enjoyed the WhatsApp exchange that revealed Matt Hancock's enthusiasm for offering NHS beds to French Covid patients at a time when the Health Secretary ( a Mr Hancock) was telling the British people not to bother with their healthcare because otherwise it would become "overwhelmed".
Wasn't the second lockdown we all lived under then enforced, rather aggressively if I remember correctly, to prevent a "medical and moral disaster" if hospitals ran out of capacity? Did we perhaps sleep during the press briefing in which Matt revealed, as he did in a letter to his French colleague, that the UK epidemic was "largely in the north of England" so that there was some spare capacity in London and the south?
Sorry, silly me; I'd forgotten. Matt said he wanted to "scare the hell out of everyone" to keep us all well behaved.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/project-fear-covid-lockdown-files-matt-hancock-whatsapp/
So sharing reassuring news - "Our hospitals are holding up surprisingly well with spare beds in the East and South" - would have been out of the question because it would have weakened his control over us. What had started as a laudable push to keep people safe had degenerated into "How can we maintain power?" without any necessary checks.
Even in the southwest, where the abundantly generous, tigerish Hancock proposed to house French patients, the prime minister had said just weeks earlier, "It is now clear that current projections mean that hospital capacity will run out in a few weeks unless we act".
The projections they gave Boris were wrong. Of course they were wrong. (Was there one projection during the pandemic that the modellers got right?) According to my senior source in NHS England, the data on bed availability for that period indicated that " hospital capacity was unlikely to run out". That explains why the health minister could secretly consider making a generous "Hancock Triumph" offer to France (and even Italy) when his own subjects were under the impression that their hospitals were full.
So, here is an urgent question for a brave MP to ask: "Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can my honorable friend, the health minister, ask for a statement on the offer, revealed in the WhatsApp messages published in The Daily Telegraph's Lockdown Files, that it was considered by his predecessor to make NHS beds available to Covid patients from France? At the time, the British people were denied access to treatments, thousands and thousands of operations were cancelled and non-Covid patients were sidelined to "support the NHS", but apparently Mr Hancock thought it appropriate to invite the French to use our medical facilities. What is the minister's view on what this says about the true state of NHS capacity at the time, and was the country perhaps misled?"
Unfortunately, although not entirely unpredictable, it was the very restrictions that Matt Hancock and his lockdown zealots told us were necessary to save the health service that almost ended it. "The NHS collapsed anyway as a direct result of the lockdowns and the huge backlog they caused," says my source. Irony doesn't come much more bitter than that.
Conservative MPs like Graham Brady and Charles Walker, Andrea Leadsom, Miriam Cates and Esther McVey, who saw the damage coming, and who planned to revolt when the country was about to be plunged into ridiculous regional strata after a punishing second lockdown, were considered traitors.
As the Lockdown Files revealed, Matt Hancock even discussed a plan with his aide, Allan Nixon, to "take off the table" a learning disability center in Bury, where MP James Daly was about to vote against the government. This is what Rishi Sunak's adviser responded to. Asked if this was not the way Sunak wants his ministers to operate, the prime minister's official spokesman said, "Of course. There are rules and guidelines that apply."
Just when you think he has sunk as low as humanly possible, he considers using children with special educational needs as leverage ("yes 100%," said Hancock enthusiastically).
By an unfortunate coincidence, I just received an e-mail from Rob, a father with an autistic son. This is what Rob wrote: "Lockdown took him from a happy 14-year-old into a complete psychological breakdown. The fear of why everyone wore masks, the breaking of routine (so important for SEN children) and the closure of schools. He was terrified. The knock-on effect for our family was devastating. Thanks to anti-psychic medication, he slowly recovered, but from the second lockdown, it destroyed the fabric of our family, not to mention the loss of our savings (self-employed). Reading the WhatsApps in The Telegraph makes me so angry. The heartbreak of a disabled child is compounded by self-righteous fools. Administering psychiatric drugs to your child focuses attention on where the blame lies and that is not with Isabel Oakeshott."
Well, there is another Hancock triumph. A 14-year-old boy successfully frightened. (Hope you're proud of yourself, Matt.) Are MPs really not going to debate what we suspected, but now know for sure, what Rob's son and thousands of other vulnerable children were deliberately done to, some of whom are no longer among us because they were so scared they took their own lives ?
Normally, only the opposition can ask an urgent question. Now Labour may want to attack the government over the appalling, laughable revelations in The Lockdown Files. They may also feel sheepish because, if they had joined forces with the Tory rebels, they could have voted down the disproportionate measures and lurid brutality.
It is entirely up to the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, whether he allows an urgent question (only he can do this ). I really hope he does. No question could be more urgent.
Our Prime Minister is a good man and a good father to his girls. He knows what happened and what was done wrong.
Facing the power-hungry man who turned the UK into a totalitarian state for two feverish years, Rishi Sunak's was almost the only voice that stood up for kindness, decency and proof. A few thoughtful words from the prime minister would be a welcome balm for the still raw wounds.
As for Matt Hancock, he has lost his Whip and unfortunately can no longer be disciplined by the Conservative party. He can - and should - be dragged before a Select Committee. Personally, I would like to see him in jail for the huge damage he has caused.
Are there grounds for prosecuting the former minister for misconduct in public office? Did Matt Hancock "deliberately misbehave in such a way as to amount to an abuse of public trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification"?
I know that some families of nursing home residents are preparing private charges against Hancock. The prosecution must then decide whether it is in the public interest to proceed. The Lockdown files should provide crucial evidence.
With the third anniversary of the lockdown, the Rights for Residents campaign asked their members to post a picture of their loved one in happier times, along with the three words that best describe them. Former times, is to say the period when these elderly ladies and gentlemen were locked up without any interaction with a close family member or friend.
They were sentenced to a living death designed by our mad Covid masters to "save lives". What could justify such a crime against humanity? That is what I call an urgent question.
Comments