Former health secretary’s spokesperson says claims made by the Daily Telegraph are a ‘distorted account’
In December last year Isabel Oakeshott wrote an article for the Spectator about co-writing Matt Hancock’s Pandemic Diaries with him in which she said he was “surprisingly inclined to disclosure”. Hancock did not keep a real diary during the pandemic, and so the book, which is written in diary form, was compiled with extensive reference to contemporary records, including WhatsApp messages. She said that she did not expect him to reveal everything, but that he “shared far more than I could ever have imagined”.
Hancock, of course, will be bitterly regretting their collaboration now that Oakeshott has decided to share the material with Daily Telegraph, and, via the paper, the world at large. In an article explaining why she has done so, she says that the public deserves to know the truth about what happened and that the public inquiry is going to take too long. She says:
Announced in May 2021, our public inquiry – which has already cost up to £85 million – has yet to begin formal hearings. Alarmingly, it does not appear to have any specific timeframe or deadline.
We all know what this means – it will drag on forever. After all, the investigation into Bloody Sunday took 10 years and was nowhere near as daunting a task.
Hancock is more sensitive about this subject than any other. The accusation that he blithely discharged Covid-positive patients from hospitals into care homes, without thinking about how this might seed the virus among the frail elderly, or attempting to stop this happening, upsets and exasperates him. The evidence I have seen is broadly in his favour.
At the beginning of the pandemic, it was simply not possible to test everyone: neither the technology nor the capacity existed. Internal communications show that care homes were clearly instructed to isolate new arrivals. It later emerged that the primary source of new infection in these settings was in any case not hospital discharges, but the movement of staff between care homes. Politically, this was very inconvenient: Hancock knew he would be accused of ‘blaming’ hardworking staff if he emphasised the link (which is exactly what has now happened).
