How defence case rests on ‘medical need’ for leaving home

DOWNING Street’s defence of Dominic Cummings rests on claims that he was following lockdown guidance on childcare when he travelled 260 miles from London to Co Durham with his wife and four-year-old son.

Yesterday Boris Johnson said: “Looking at the very severe childcare difficulties that presented themselves to Dominic Cummings and his family, I think what they did was totally understandable. There is guidance about that particular difficulty, about what you need to do, the pressures that families face when they have childcare needs.”

Downing Street said the guidance the Prime Minister was referring to was the written instructions issued on March 23 as he gave his televised address to the nation announcing the lockdown. However, this does not mention children specifically.

It does give “very limited purposes” for leaving home, including “any medical need, including to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, or to provide care or help a vulnerable person”.

The following day, March 24, Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer, expanded on the rule when she was specifically asked if a vulnerable person could be a child of parents who had the virus. However, Number 10 was unable to point to any written guidance which explicitly related to this point.

‘He behaved responsibly and correctly with a view to defeating the virus and stopping the spread’

Dr Harries said: “A small child clearly is a vulnerable individual, so in this case, although we are encouraging everybody to stay in their households – that’s the unit with the same exposure – clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance.”

She made clear that the child’s parents could seek further help, but suggested it should be locally based: “If the individuals do not have access to care support, formal care support or to family, they will be able to work through local authority hubs.”

As Number 10 made clear in a statement on Saturday, Mr Cummings and Ms Wakefield interpreted this to mean that they were allowed to drive hundreds of miles north to find the support of Mr Cummings’ extended family – and the Prime Minister has accepted this reasoning.

A Downing Street spokesman said then: “Owing to his wife being infected with suspected coronavirus and the high likelihood that he would himself become unwell, it was essential for Dominic Cummings to ensure his young child could be properly cared for.

“His sister and nieces had volunteered to help so he went to a house near to but separate from his extended family in case their help was needed. His sister shopped for the family and left everything outside.

“At no stage was he or his family spoken to by the police about this matter, as is being reported. His actions were in line with coronavirus guidelines. Mr Cummings believes he behaved reasonably and legally.”

The long journey to the North East risked being in breach of guidance from the Department for Transport on March 22 that people should stay in their “primary residence” and only leave home for “essential travel” which did “not include visits to second homes ... whether for isolation purposes or holidays”.

Regulations that came into force on March 28 also made it an offence to leave home without a “reasonable excuse”.

Soon after arriving in Co Durham, Mr Cummings fell seriously ill with the virus, raising questions over whether he was infected by his wife on the journey north.

Under the lockdown rules he would have had to remain apart from his parents Robert and Morag, who are both considered vulnerable as they are in their 70s and live nearby.

This is why Number 10’s statement stressed that Mr Cummings “went to a house near to but separate from his extended family”.

Two Sunday newspapers then claimed yesterday that Mr Cummings was spotted out and about in Co Durham

on Easter Sunday, April 12, and on April 19, prompting a furious response from Downing Street.

The Number 10 spokesman said: “Yesterday the Mirror and Guardian wrote inaccurate stories about Mr Cummings. Today they are writing more inaccurate stories including claims that Mr Cummings returned to Durham after returning to work in Downing Street on 14 April.

“We will not waste our time answering a stream of false allegations about Mr Cummings from campaigning newspapers.”

However it was soon clear that Number 10 was only denying that Mr Cummings had returned to Co Durham on April 19, as this would have meant that Mr Cummings had returned to London before heading back to the North East.

In fact, Downing Street seemed to be conceding that Mr Cummings had been walking at Barnard Castle, by the River Tees on April 12, 30 miles from where he was staying, in apparent breach of rules set out on March 27 that exercise had to be once a day and “local”.

In his press conference Mr Johnson cleared Mr Cummings of any wrongdoing on this count, too, saying he found that “on both sides” of Mr Cummings’s period of isolation “he behaved responsibly and correctly with a view to defeating the virus and stopping the spread”.

After the PM said in his statement that Mr Cummings was following “the instincts of every father and every parent” to help his son, one journalist asked whether it was the case that while Mr Cummings was following his instincts “the rest of the country were following rules”.

Mr Johnson later said: “I can totally get why people might feel so confused and, as you say, offended by the idea that it was one thing for people here and one thing for others.

“But having looked at what happened, having looked at his intentions of what he was trying to do for the good of his family, I really think most people will understand what he was doing and, above all, the measures he took were designed to stop the spread of the virus.”

Mr Cummings was safe in his job, for now.