Adult social care was in a “terrible” state of pandemic preparedness with the Government lacking basic knowledge, including how many care homes were in the UK at the time when coronavirus struck, Matt Hancock said.
The former Health Secretary told the UK Covid-19 Inquiry that by January 2020 the department he headed up – which he accepted meant he had responsibility to ensure “adequate oversight” for planning and preparedness for a health emergency – did not have a plan in place to identify how many people were in the care sector.
But the MP insisted the responsibility for ensuring pandemic preparedness in the sector “formally fell to local authorities” – stating that he was accountable through his role as secretary of state for health and social care but “didn’t have the levers to act”.
One of the central challenges in social care is that whilst I have the title Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the primary responsibility...falls to local councils. In a national crisis this is a very significant problem— Matt Hancock
He described the system for running adult social care as “flawed” and said it was in “nowhere near good-enough shape” when the the pandemic hit.
He told the inquiry during Tuesday morning’s three-hour session: “One of the central challenges in social care is that whilst I have the title Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the primary responsibility, legal responsibility, contractual responsibility for social care falls to local councils.
“In a national crisis this is a very significant problem because, as I put it in my witness statement, I had the title, I was accountable but I didn’t have the levers to act.”
He said he had asked to see the pandemic preparedness plans he understood local authorities were required to have in place, and that social care minister, Helen Whately, had “found that there were only two” which were “wholly inadequate”.
The inquiry’s chief lawyer Hugo Keith KC asked Mr Hancock whether or not he could say the adult social care sector was well prepared for a pandemic “when the department had no means of finding out whether or not they had the right plans in place, whether local authorities had planned sufficiently, let alone how many numbers were in the care sector”?
Mr Hancock replied: “No, it was terrible.”
The system for how we run adult social care is flawed. There was work ongoing to try to resolve it, including work directly related to pandemic planning, but it was in nowhere near good-enough shape— Matt Hancock
Mr Keith asked whether, by the beginning of 2020, Mr Hancock’s department had in place “a single coherent plan” to identify how many people were in the care sector, to which the politician said it did not.
He said a central plan for data-sharing between private and public care providers and emergency responders in order to better prepare for a pandemic “was being developed” but was not in place at the time.
Mr Hancock said there was no single national guidance for pandemic preparedness in the adult social care sector, and that only two local resilience forums had plans in place on the local authority level for dealing with the impact of a catastrophic pandemic on the elderly.
He said that ahead of the pandemic even basic data was lacking “for instance, how many care homes are operating right now in the UK – that was a fact that we did not know at that time and I’m glad to say now there’s far better data”.
Mr Keith asked if the department was able to verify the extent of pandemic preparedness planning being done by local authorities.
Mr Hancock replied: “No, we didn’t have the policy levers to do so, despite having the name social care in the title.”
It meant that as the person trying to solve this problem with a disease that self-evidently impacted on older people most, we were in an incredibly difficult position to do so when the pandemic struck— Matt Hancock
The Local Government Association, which represents most local authorities in England and Wales, said it would have its say on the issues when called to give evidence to the inquiry in the coming weeks.
Mr Hancock described the position on facing a virus which “self-evidently impacted on older people most” was an “incredibly difficult position” due to how the sector was run.
He told the inquiry: “The system for how we run adult social care is flawed. There was work ongoing to try to resolve it, including work directly related to pandemic planning, but it was in nowhere near good-enough shape.
“And it meant that as the person trying to solve this problem with a disease that self-evidently impacted on older people most, we were in an incredibly difficult position to do so when the pandemic struck.
“And despite the enormous hard work of everybody in that sector, and in the department in relation to adult social care, it was very, very difficult early on, and that’s in part because this planning was ongoing, but the systems in this country for managing adult social care are not good enough, and that that reform work was under way, but it still hasn’t been completed.”
Duncan Selbie, the ex-chief executive of Public Health England, said he would “definitely concur” with Mr Hancock that “social care was just not on our radar”, as he gave evidence to the inquiry on Tuesday.
