Brexiteer (Tory) response to my email about Cummings.
Thank you for contacting me regarding Dominic Cummings, and the events that have unfolded during the past few days. I apologise for any delay in this response; my office have received a large volume of correspondence on this issue over the bank holiday weekend. It is fair to say that a large majority of those emails express real anger at Mr Cummings’ reported actions, and I have fed that strength of feeling into the Government.
Can I firstly say that I absolutely understand why people across Amber Valley would be very angry at anyone that ignores or flouts the lockdown rules. These restrictions on normal life and especially on seeing loved ones, supporting ill relatives or attending funerals have been very difficult for everyone, and it remains necessary in tackling this virus for us all to maintain discipline.
I have watched Mr Cummings’ statement and listened closely to his explanation – the statement is here if you would like to watch it.
As I said on Radio Derby yesterday, and to the Derby Telegraph, my reading of the lockdown rules in force at the end of March would not stretch to include driving 250 miles as a precaution, or driving 30 miles to test one’s recovery or stamina.
That said, from his statement, it is clear to me that he did not just ignore the rules or decide he was above them but tried to find a solution, on a very urgent timescale, to the very concerning issue of providing care for his young child given that his wife had been too ill to provide care that day, and he feared – accurately as it turned out – given his exposure to the virus that he too may become seriously unwell. He seemed to have genuinely believed travelling to ensure his sister and nieces could provide that care while he and his wife could self-isolate was within the text of the rules allowing people to arrange for family to take on caring responsibilities, and would minimise risk to his child and to those who might have to provide the care. I also found his concerns for the safety of his family at home compelling.
His explanation of the need to travel to Barnard Castle was less compelling, and while limited travel for exercise was permitted at that time, and I could understand wanting to check the extent of his recovery before making the long drive back to work in London, I’m not sure there was a need to head to a beauty spot. I would have expected the local police to have, following the general approach, advised him to leave had they seen him there.
The issue therefore for me is whether somebody, in a very difficult and urgent situation, who believed his actions were within the rules, even if in retrospect they were not, should be sacked from their job. It is not the case, in my opinion, that he just ignored the rules or to dodge restrictions on seeing family, socialising etc that apply to everyone. It seems to be he tried to act reasonably even if he got it wrong and in that case, in these unique circumstances, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I would also much prefer the Prime Minister to stand by his team if he believes they have done nothing wrong and not dismiss them just to make his position easier.
I hope the above explains the position I have taken. I also hope that the Government can now focus on the difficult and pressing decisions needed to manage this crisis, deliver the next stage of the lockdown, support the economy recover from this terrible downturn and get Brexit done with key decisions needed next month.