Politics

Cummings slates Government, Johnson, and Hancock

Published

5 years ago

May 28, 2021

“THE TRUTH is that senior ministers, senior officials, senior advisers like me fell disastrously short of the standards that the public has a right to expect of its Government in a crisis like this.

“When the public needed us most, the Government failed.

“I would like to say to all the families of those who died unnecessarily how sorry I am for themistakes that were made and for my own mistakes at that.”

Dominic Cummings’ opening statement to the Covid-19: Lessons Learned Committee of the House of Commons is an attention-grabbing one.

The rest of his evidence was no less damning of Westminster’s response in the early days of the pandemic.

It revealed a government in which discussions at Cobra meetings, supposedly the most secure and confidential of briefings, were routinely leaked to the media. It showed a PM who went away on holiday as the crisis broke. The Government failed to follow the logic of the science presented to it and took weeks to understand the pandemic’s capacity to overwhelm the NHS.

And – as Mr Cummings said – ‘unbelievably’ we have a government whose response to the crisis at a critical time was put on the back burner to deal with a complaint by the PM’s fiancé about a disobliging story about her dog.

CUMMINGS HAS PAPER TRAIL

Suppose Mr Cummings, like so many others, made his assertion without a paper trail. In that case, his remarks could be interpreted as so much self-serving nonsense and a study in revenge. However, he has the paperwork, the email trail, the journal entries, the secret WhatsApp chats to back up his account.

His story got extra heft by his clear expression of regret that he had not obtained an independent view of the Government’s data earlier. When he did deliver data to those outside Downing Street, the extent of the crisis became apparent.

He made it clear the Government could have got better insight sooner and taken steps towards lockdown six weeks before it did.

The Prime Minister maintained ‘this new swine-flu thing’ was less of a risk than economic damage from overreaction throughout February, even as infections and deaths escalated.

However, the data was wrong. According to Mr Cummings, had the models been checked against live data from Intensive Care Units concerning Covid infections, it would’ve been evident the models presented to the Government and upon which it based its decisions were totally flawed.

NO PLANNING

In a withering assessment, Dominic Cummings said the more people criticised the plan, or lack of one, the more people on the inside believed their critics lacked knowledge.

If there’d been proper scrutiny and interrogation of what Ministers were being told, “we would have figured out at least six weeks earlier that there was an alternative plan”.

The original plan, he said, was “complete garbage”.

More than that, the Department of Health’s ‘plan’ amounted to no more than a press release.

The Department of Health was ’a smoking ruin’, he claimed. There was no plan for shielding, support, emergency procurement. The Department of Health failed to appreciate the size of the crisis and stuck to its normal procurement channels until it was almost out of PPE. The Department of Health refused to buy ventilators because their price had risen.

He suggested a proposal – seriously advanced for consideration – that people hold the equivalent of ‘chickenpox parties’ was met with disbelief by scientists who had to point out that chickenpox was not killing hundreds of thousand people worldwide.

Matt Hancock: Accused of lying to colleagues and the public

HANCOCK BRANDED A LIAR

Dominic Cummings turned personal fire onto Matt Hancock, who remains the Secretary of State for Health.

He accused Mr Hancock of lying and that the Health Secretary’s conduct merited his instant dismissal.

He had earlier mentioned the Health Secretary’s denial that the Government pursued a herd immunity policy that formed a vital element of the Government’s then-approach.

Dominic Cummings said Matt Hancock “for lying to everybody in multiple occasions in meeting after meeting in the cabinet room and publicly”.

Crucially, Mr Cummings said the Cabinet Secretary (Mark Sedwill, the UK’s most senior civil servant) told him and the Prime Minister that he did not trust Matt Hancock to be truthful. He had notes of the meeting in which that remark was made.

Mark Sedwill, Mr Cummings claimed, told Boris Johnson that the cabinet system was not set up to deal with a minister like Matt Hancock, who – he alleged Mr Sedwill said – repeatedly lied in meetings.

He alleged Mr Hancock deliberately delayed implementing a proper track and trace system to meet an arbitrary testing target.

Like the Mayor in Jaws: Media-obsessed PM didn’t stop foreign travel

JOHNSON DUCKS THE QUESTIONS

As the Committee took a break, Prime Minister’s Questions opened in the House of Commons.

Asked about Dominic Cummings’ evidence, the Prime Minister failed to deny key allegations from it when asked by opposition leader Kier Starmer.

Instead, Boris Johnson deflected the questions by referring to a public inquiry. Mr Johnson refused to give a date for that inquiry’s start.

Mr Johnson seemed to decide poking the hornets’ nest would invite further disclosures from Mr Cummings, more damning than the testimony already given.

The picture Mr Cummings painted was chaos at the heart of Government, institutional complacency, lack of expertise in the key departments, and – tellingly – a Prime Minister and Cabinet with only a tenuous grasp on the urgency of the situation.

Given a chance to plan for different scenarios and allocate adequate resources, the Prime Minister and other key ministers preferred to look on the sunny side, hope for the best, and expect something to turn up.

The PM took his opportunity to have a holiday.

Nothing Mr Cummings said was more telling than his revelation that the reason the UK did not enter lockdown sooner was the Government – including the civil service – did not have a plan. The part of the civil service supposed to deal with civil emergencies couldn’t cope because it lacked expertise in the response it was supposed to handle. Planning was always based on a peak of the virus twelve weeks in the future from the date of any meeting.

The pandemic’s first wave peaked in late April. The Government, as late as March 14, planned for a peak in June.

JOHNSON LIKE THE MAYOR IN JAWS

Mr Cummings’ account of a shielding plan drawn up over two all-night brainstorming sessions after the lockdown’s announcement was hair-raising. At the eleventh hour it emerged the UK hadn’t taken account of vulnerable groups’ protection.

As the pandemic raged and demands made to put a brake on overseas travel, Dominic Cummings claimed the PM didn’t want one. He painted a picture of a media-obsessed Boris Johnson swayed by press campaigns against taking preventative action.

Mr Cummings explained Mr Johnson’s behaviour was like the Mayor’s in Jaws. He wanted to keep the beach open, even as the shark ate the swimmers.

On a broader topic, Dominic Cummings criticised a ‘crackers’ political system that allowed people like him and Boris Johnson to exercise such power during an emergency when they were unqualified to deal with one.

Mr Cummings’ tarter observations about the ability of the UK’s political parties included a stinging attack on how political parties select and support their leaders.

To summarise his view: he suggested the problem with the political system in this country is that voters had a choice between people like Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson at the last election.

He concluded from that statement that the parties need to look at themselves to find out why they put ‘that sort of person’ forward for office.

That’s an issue beyond the current inquiry’s scope. ‘Teflon Al Johnson’ will be very grateful it is after Wednesday’s hearing.

Business

Cwm Deri Vineyard Martletwy holiday lets plans deferred

Published

7 minutes ago

December 4, 2025

Bruce Sinclair - Local Democracy Reporter

CALLS to convert a former vineyard restaurant in rural Pembrokeshire which had been recommended for refusal has been given a breathing space by planners.

In an application recommended for refusal at the December meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council’s planning committee, Barry Cadogan sought permission for a farm diversification and expansion of an existing holiday operation through the conversion of the redundant former Cwm Deri vineyard production base and restaurant to three holiday lets at Oaklea, Martletwy.

It was recommended for refusal on the grounds of the open countryside location being contrary to planning policy and there was no evidence submitted that the application would not increase foul flows and that nutrient neutrality in the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC would be achieved within this catchment.

An officer report said that, while the scheme was suggested as a form of farm diversification, no detail had been provided in the form of a business case.

Speaking at the meeting, agent Andrew Vaughan-Harries of Hayston Developments & Planning Ltd, after the committee had enjoyed a seasonal break for mince pies, said of the recommendation for refusal: “I’m a bit grumpy over this one; the client has done everything right, he has talked with the authority and it’s not in retrospect but has had a negative report from your officers.”

He said the former Cwm Deri vineyard had been a very successful business, with a shop and a restaurant catering for ‘100 covers’ before it closed two three years ago when the original owner relocated to Carmarthenshire.

He said Mr Cadogan then bought the site, farming over 36 acres and running a small campsite of 20 spaces, but didn’t wish to run a café or a wine shop; arguing the “beautiful kitchen” and facilities would easily convert to holiday let use.

He said a “common sense approach” showed a septic tank that could cope with a restaurant of “100 covers” could cope with three holiday lets, describing the nitrates issue as “a red herring”.

He suggested a deferral for further information to be provided by the applicant, adding: “This is a big, missed opportunity if we just kick this out today, there’s a building sitting there not creating any jobs.”

On the ‘open countryside’ argument, he said that while many viewed Martletwy as “a little bit in the sticks” there was already permission for the campsite, and the restaurant, and the Bluestone holiday park and the Wild Lakes water park were roughly a mile or so away.

He said converting the former restaurant would “be an asset to bring it over to tourism,” adding: “We don’t all want to stay in Tenby or the Ty Hotel in Milford Haven.”

While Cllr Nick Neuman felt the nutrients issue could be overcome, Cllr Michael Williams warned the application was “clearly outside policy,” recommending it be refused.

A counter-proposal, by Cllr Tony Wilcox, called for a site visit before any decision was made, the application returning to a future committee; members voting seven to three in favour of that.

Climate

Fishguard ‘battery box’ scheme near school refused

Published

10 hours ago

December 3, 2025

Bruce Sinclair - Local Democracy Reporter

PLANNERS have refused a Pembrokeshire ‘battery box’ electricity storage unit near a Pembrokeshire town school, which has seen local objections including fears of a potential risk to nearby school children.

In an application recommended for approval at the December meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council’s planning committee, AMP Clean Energy sought permission for a micro energy storage project on land at Fishguard Leisure Centre Car Park, near Ysgol Bro Gwaun.

The application had previously been recommended for approval at the November meeting, but a decision was deferred pending a site visit.

The scheme is one of a number of similar applications by AMP, either registered or approved under delegated planning powers by officers.

The battery boxes import electricity from the local electricity network when demand for electricity is low or when there are high levels of renewable energy available, exporting it back during periods of high demand to help address grid reliability issues; each giving the potential to power 200 homes for four hours.

The Fishguard scheme, which has seen objections from the town council and members of the public, was before committee at the request of the local member, Cllr Pat Davies.

Fishguard and Goodwick Town Council objected to the proposal on grounds including visual impact, and the location being near the school.

An officer report said the scheme would be well screened by a Paladin Fence, with a need to be sited close to an existing substation.

Speaking at the December meeting, Ben Wallace of AMP Clean Energy conceded the boxes were “not things of beauty” before addressing previously raised concerns of any potential fire risk, saying that “in the incredibly unlikely” event of a fire, the system would contain it for up to two hours, giving “plenty of time” for it to be extinguished, an alarm immediately sounding, with the fire service raising no concerns.

“These are fundamentally safe, the technology is not new,” he said, comparing them to such batteries in phones and laptops.

One of the three objectors at the meeting raised concerns of the proximity to homes and the school, describing it as “an unsafe, unsustainable and unnecessary location,” with Cllr Jim Morgan of Fishguard Town Council, who had previously raised concerns of the “nightmare scenario” of a fire as children were leaving the school, also voicing similar issues.

Local county councillor Pat Davies, who had spoken at the previous meeting stressing she was not against the technology, just the location and the potential risk to pupils, said the siting would be “a visual intrusion,” with the school having many concerns about the scheme, adding it had been “brought forward without any dialogue of consultation with the school”.

Cllr Davies added: “It is unacceptable that a micro-storage unit should be proposed in this area; someone somewhere has got it wrong.”

Following a lengthy debate, committee chair Cllr Mark Carter proposed going against officers in refusing the scheme; members unanimously refusing the application.

Climate

Fears Sageston wind turbine scheme could affect bats

Published

10 hours ago

December 3, 2025

Bruce Sinclair - Local Democracy Reporter

AN APPLICATION for a wind turbine nearly 250 foot high on the road to Tenby, recommended to be turned down due to a lack of information on how it could affect bats, has been put on hold.

In an application recommended for refusal at the December meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council’s planning committee, Constantine Wind Energy Ltd sought permission for a 76-metre-high wind turbine at Summerton Farm, Sageston.

Back in 2024, an application to replace a current 60.5m high turbine on the site with one up to 90 metres, or just under 300 foot, at the site was refused on the grounds its height and scale would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the locality, with the additional clause of failing to comply with supplementary guidance.

A report for committee members on the latest application says the smaller turbine than previously proposed, representing a 16-metre increase in height from a previously granted turbine “would not be sufficient for it to become an overbearing feature in the landscape,” with no objections from either the Council Landscape Officer or Natural Resources Wales.

However, concerns were raised by the council ecologist that the applicant’s Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report was incomplete.

“The Council Ecologist questions why the response received in relation to myotis bat records were not included within the initial PEA. As such, he considers that the PEA does not present enough information on the possible presence of bats within the application site area.

“Whilst there may be negligible foraging and commuting potential, there are records of foraging on grassland within two kilometres which have positive identification of myotis bat foraging, along with greater and lesser horseshoe bat foraging. He also notes that the application site is in close proximity to a wooded area.”

It was recommended for refusal on the grounds that appraisal report, and technical note, “do not adequately address the impact of the proposed wind turbine on bat activity in the area”.

At the committee meeting, members heard the scheme had been temporarily withdrawn to deal with issues raised, the application expected to return to a future meeting.