Within the ongoing Covid inquiry in the United Kingdom, former health secretary Matt Hancock returned to testify and address a chorus of criticisms from some colleagues and the country’s top scientific advisers. The public hearings have highlighted disputes and anger among political and scientific circles about the handling of the pandemic, with Hancock defending his actions while noting he did not possess unchecked authority. The exchange painted a picture of a government under strain, where tensions between ministers and advisers shaped—and perhaps distorted—the response at critical moments.
Hancock explained that his department often faced obstacles that blocked crucial work in the battle against the virus. He asserted that the government sometimes blocked efforts to move quickly, and he suggested that concerns raised by his ministry were not always given the attention they deserved by late February. The former minister spoke for more than five hours, insisting that his department had the capacity to make necessary decisions and arguing that ultimate authority did not rest solely with the Health Ministry. The testimony framed the struggle not as a lack of capability, but as a battle over who held the power to act decisively in a rapidly evolving crisis.
First calls for alarm and early actions
Hancock recalled efforts to raise alarm about the magnitude of the problem, emphasizing that the issue had been discussed since mid-January. He stressed that this challenge could not be solved by the Health Ministry alone, pointing out that the department did not have the capacity to close schools on its own. He suggested that a broader government response was required and that a stronger, earlier piloting of interventions would have altered the course of events. Hancock argued that measures such as school closures and other protective steps could have been implemented sooner to prevent damage, potentially averting a larger share of deaths in the first wave. He highlighted the aim to avert a worst-case scenario by acting promptly, even when the path forward was not perfectly clear.
The former minister acknowledged that some initial decisions relied on scientific indicators that later proved imperfect, including early assumptions about transmission by asymptomatic individuals. He expressed regret that he did not persist with certain lines of scientific advice and that some recommendations were ultimately revised. In this regard, the inquiry’s lead counsel presented documents showing warnings from the scientific advisers about possible scenarios, challenging Hancock’s recollections. The testimony also touched on public perception at the time, with social media voices and political rivals accusing him of mixing messages or providing Johnson with misleading information. The tensions highlighted a moment when science, politics, and public messaging collided in a high-stakes environment.
Internal tensions and political dynamics
The former health secretary’s testimony also touched on personal and interpersonal strains within the government during the early months of the epidemic. Hancock described an environment in which disagreements and different judgments about policy were common at the highest levels. He confirmed that there were moments of friction with then-Chancellor of the Exchequer and later Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, including policy proposals that affected public behavior—such as encouraging attendance in pubs and restaurants in August 2020 without prior consultation. The sequence of events followed by rising infection numbers underscored how quickly policy choices could influence the trajectory of the outbreak and public health outcomes.
The commission’s proceedings, which are examining the preparedness of the health system and the quality of political decision-making, are scheduled to publish the preliminary findings of the first two modules in the middle of the coming year. These modules analyze how plans were formulated, how resources were deployed, and how decisions were coordinated across government. As the hearings progress, additional interventions, including a planned appearance by Boris Johnson, are set to unfold in the following weeks. The inquiry continues to assemble testimonies and documents to chart the sequence of events and to assess the accuracy and completeness of the government’s pandemic response.