the uk covid inquiry will release its first report today to answer that question.— its first report today to answer that question. its first report today to answer that cuestion. �* , , ., that question. building bridges and relationships. _ that question. building bridges and relationships, sir— that question. building bridges and relationships, sir keir— that question. building bridges and relationships, sir keir starmer- that question. building bridges and relationships, sir keir starmer will| relationships, sir keir starmer will host 50 leaders at the european political community summit today. lib dem leader ed davey and pat mcfadden will give evidence at the post office inquiry today. welcome. the failures and weaknesses in the uk's pandemic preparations are expected to be laid out in the first report published by the covid inquiry. baroness hallett will set out her findings at lunchtime. jim reid reports. spring, 2020.

shops were shut, schools were closed. four years on, and life might feel back to normal. but what needs to change if or when the next pandemic hits us? good morning. a public inquiry has been trying to answer that question. shall be the truth... the whole truth. and nothing but the truth. today, its first findings will look just at the time before covid, including planning and the state of the nhs, after a decade of spending constraints. we were at the bottom of the table on number of doctors, number of nurses, number of beds, number of itus. if you lose control of your debt and you lose control of your deficit and you lose control of your economy, you end up cutting the health service. dr saleyha ahsan is a documentary—maker and trained army medic. ijust remember it being a really brutal time, i think. she filmed this working in a covid ward during the pandemic.

we were dealing with a killer virus. we hadn't a vaccine at that point. ppe was short. it was ridiculous. it felt that we were making do, and the people that were being pushed to the front were health care workers. in 2020, dr ahsan�*s father caught covid. he died weeks later. it's so super important to make sure that we learn lessons and i say learn from those who did it well, um, because we're going to lose lives unnecessarily. the inquiry will look into why some other countries seemed better prepared. south korea, for example, used fast contact tracing to suppress early outbreaks. professor adam kucharski advised the government at the time. one of the things that covid really showed is just the amount of damage a pandemic can do, particularly if countries

aren't adequately prepared. and a lot of that wasn't just about the decisions they made in the middle of the outbreak, it was about all of the data infrastructure, resources, protocols, policies they had before that that put them in a much better position. many countries were caught offguard in 2020. the scars are still visible today. another reason why scientists say planning for the next pandemic is not important, but essential. jim reed, bbc news. our correspondent nicky schiller is at the inquiry in central london for us now. this report eagerly awaited? absolutely. covid inquiry of course was set up back in may 2021 by the then prime minister borisjohnson to look at the whole of reaction and how the uk dealt with the covid pandemic. the inquiry itself or last

for another couple of years, at the hearing is not due to end until 2026. but the way the inquiry has been set up as it is being done in what are known as modules, sections, and this is the first report on the first module, section, and that is about how as you had in that report prepared the uk was to deal with a pandemic. and it has looked at all of the evidence given back this time last year over 60 weeks, 69 different experts gave statements —— over six weeks. they included the former health secretary matt hancock and another former health secretary jeremy hunt, chancellor at the time, and former prime minister david cameron. we are expecting this report from baroness hallett to be quite critical. we do not know what is in it but we have some ideas based on what the evidence was that was given in the six weeks of testimony last year and there are

three key areas. the first was about the actual planning around and whether we dealt and were looking at too much for influenza and flu rather than thinking it could be coronavirus because there had been by then two outbreaks of coronavirus in asia, sars and mers, and they dealt with it differently, quarantine and looking down borders. also the impact of brexit and whether departments were looking too much at planning for no—deal brexit rather than focusing on plans for a pandemic and also the issue of austerity and whether the austerity we had in the previous years had meant the whole service was not staffed enough with doctors and nurses. those are the three areas we think the report will focus on. it will be out at midday. first i want to also hear from some of the people this is really going to affect

because the politicians will react to this but also there are so many human lives involved as well. we have been talking to some of the relatives relatives of victims of covid, 235,000 different deaths associated with covid, and they are also looking at this inquiry and what it says. i am joined now by lord toby harris the chair of the national preparedness committee, thank you forjoining us on bbc news. i wondered, thank you forjoining us on bbc news. iwondered, this thank you forjoining us on bbc news. i wondered, this report is going to look and we are going to hear baroness hallett�*s recommendations about how prepared we were. how prepared do you think we were. how prepared do you think we were. how prepared do you think we were to deal with the outbreak of covid back in late 2019, 2020? i think we were actually very ill—prepared to deal with it. what preparations there were were for influenza — preparations there were were for influenza rather than a coronavirus

and it_ influenza rather than a coronavirus and it is_ influenza rather than a coronavirus and it is not— influenza rather than a coronavirus and it is not even clear that the flu preparedness measures were really— flu preparedness measures were really up — flu preparedness measures were really up to speed, reports of out of date _ really up to speed, reports of out of date equipment, ppe. sol really up to speed, reports of out of date equipment, ppe. so i think that is_ of date equipment, ppe. so i think that is going to be one of the messages. but what it highlights to messages. but what it highlights to me is— messages. but what it highlights to me is that — messages. but what it highlights to me is that you should notjust be prepared — me is that you should notjust be prepared for the one thing, you need to have _ prepared for the one thing, you need to have preparedness across all the risks and _ to have preparedness across all the risks and hazards that face us as a nation _ risks and hazards that face us as a nation. there are 89 acute risks identified — nation. there are 89 acute risks identified in the national risk register, _ identified in the national risk register, many of them could be potentiallyjust as disruptive, just as serious— potentiallyjust as disruptive, just as serious as the covid pandemic. and i_ as serious as the covid pandemic. and i am — as serious as the covid pandemic. and i am not— as serious as the covid pandemic. and i am not sure we have devoted enough _ and i am not sure we have devoted enough energy as a nation, enough resources _ enough energy as a nation, enough resources as — enough energy as a nation, enough resources as a nation, to make sure we can— resources as a nation, to make sure we can respond nimbly and quickly when _ we can respond nimbly and quickly when something awful happens. gk,

when something awful happens. 0k, lord harris. — when something awful happens. 0k, lord harris, we _ when something awful happens. (iii, lord harris, we will when something awful happens. oi, lord harris, we will leave when something awful happens. oil, lord harris, we will leave at there. thank you for your time. the reason is there is another inquiry going on today which of course is the post office inquiry and pat mcfadden has just started giving evidence, let us cross and hear what he has to say. matters relating to royal mail. ilat matters relating to royal mail. not at the matters relating to royal mail. iirrt at the cabinet office, no. matters relating to royal mail. notl at the cabinet office, no. appointed as the minister _ at the cabinet office, no. appointed as the minister of _ at the cabinet office, no. appointed as the minister of state _ at the cabinet office, no. appointed as the minister of state and - at the cabinet office, no. appointed as the minister of state and the - as the minister of state and the department for business, enterprise and regulatory reform on the 2nd of july, 2007~ — and regulatory reform on the 2nd of jul , 2007. , and regulatory reform on the 2nd of july, 2007. yes. that is a value held until _ july, 2007. yes. that is a value held until the _ july, 2007. yes. that is a value held until the change _ july, 2007. jazz that is a value held until the change of government in 2010, _ held until the change of government in 2010, albeit the department change — in 2010, albeit the department chance. l, , , ' change. yeah, slightly different names, change. yeah, slightly different names. the _ change. yeah, slightly different names, the department - change. yeah, slightly differentl names, the department changed change. yeah, slightly different - names, the department changed its name, slightly different responsibilities, the role involved a bit, particularly after 2000 when lord mandelson was appointed secretary of state because that gave us the unusual situation where the

secretary of state for the department was not an mp but was a member of the house of lords, so from that moment on, my role expanded to cover more of the different things the business department was doing. we different things the business department was doing. we will look at those, department was doing. we will look at those. the _ department was doing. we will look at those, the change _ department was doing. we will look at those, the change of _ department was doing. we will look at those, the change of department and you _ at those, the change of department and you world in more detail shortly~ _ and you world in more detail shortly~ -- _ and you world in more detail shortly. —— your role. before we go there. _ shortly. —— your role. before we go there. the — shortly. —— your role. before we go there, the end of my questions, i will he _ there, the end of my questions, i will be asking you for your thoughts on current— will be asking you for your thoughts on current matters. for that reason, could _ on current matters. for that reason, could you — on current matters. for that reason, could you please confirm what your current _ could you please confirm what your current role — could you please confirm what your current role is in government? my current role is in government? current role is in government? current role as current role is in government? ij�*i current role as minister for current role is in government? ii1: current role as minister for the cabinet office in the cabinet. let us look at the department. as i said _ us look at the department. as i said. you — us look at the department. as i said, you were appointed as a minister— said, you were appointed as a minister of state in july, said, you were appointed as a minister of state injuly, 2007. the department for business, enterprise and regulatory reform was created a few days _ and regulatory reform was created a few days before your appointment. do you remember that? yes. before that,

the post you remember that? before that, the post office you rememberthat? i2; before that, the post office had been the responsibility within government of the department of trade and in the three _ the department of trade and in the three. , l, the department of trade and in the three. , . l, . the department of trade and in the three. , l, l, l, , three. yes. i mean, to all intents and purposes. — three. yes. i mean, to all intents and purposes, the _ three. yes. i mean, to all intents and purposes, the same - three. yes. i mean, to all intents - and purposes, the same department, but with certain added emphasis on something. so, there was an emphasis on regulatory reform, but throughout this, i think on regulatory reform, but throughout this, ithink it on regulatory reform, but throughout this, i think it is fairly logical just to regard it as the same department under these different names. l, l, , department under these different names. l, l, l, , department under these different names. l, l, , names. that was going to be my cuestion. names. that was going to be my question- are — names. that was going to be my question. are you _ names. that was going to be my question. are you aware - names. that was going to be my question. are you aware of- names. that was going to be my question. are you aware of the l question. are you aware of the reason — question. are you aware of the reason for— question. are you aware of the reason for the change of name from dti to _ reason for the change of name from dti to the _ reason for the change of name from dti to the department for enterprise and regulatory reform?— dti to the department for enterprise and regulatory reform? there was an emhasis and regulatory reform? there was an emphasis on — and regulatory reform? there was an emphasis on regulation. _ and regulatory reform? there was an emphasis on regulation. we - and regulatory reform? there was an emphasis on regulation. we wanted | and regulatory reform? there was an l emphasis on regulation. we wanted at the time... quite a lot of debate about regulatory burdens on business, could we get not necessarily always less regulation

but more sensible regulation? a lot of emphasis on red tape. is there a way to reduce red tape for business and other organisations? so, the name change was really about emphasising that in 2007. was there a chance in emphasising that in 2007. was there a change in the _ emphasising that in 2007. was there a change in the department's - a change in the department's portfolio _ a change in the department's portfolio overall? | a change in the department's portfolio overall?— a change in the department's portfolio overall? i am not sure. they may _ portfolio overall? i am not sure. they may have _ portfolio overall? i am not sure. they may have taken _ portfolio overall? i am not sure. they may have taken on - portfolio overall? i am not sure. i they may have taken on additional responsibilities for regulatory reform. not as far as postal affairs matters. that carried on from the previous dti to the newly named department. previous dti to the newly named department-_ previous dti to the newly named deartment. ~ l, l, l, department. moving forward in the timeline, i department. moving forward in the timeline. i am _ department. moving forward in the timeline, i am just _ department. moving forward in the timeline, i am just focusing - department. moving forward in the timeline, i am just focusing on - department. moving forward in the timeline, i am just focusing on the| timeline, i am just focusing on the department at the moment rather than your role _ department at the moment rather than your role as _ department at the moment rather than your role as such, you say that the department— your role as such, you say that the department for business, enterprise and regulatory reform was dissolved on the _ and regulatory reform was dissolved on the 5th _ and regulatory reform was dissolved on the 5th ofjune, 2009. and regulatory reform was dissolved on the 5th of june, 2009.— on the 5th ofjune, 2009. correct. that was replaced _ on the 5th ofjune, 2009. correct. that was replaced by _

on the 5th ofjune, 2009. correct. that was replaced by the - on the 5th ofjune, 2009. correct. i that was replaced by the department of business, innovation and skills. yes _ of business, innovation and skills. yes. , , l, of business, innovation and skills. yes. , l, l, , l, yes. just... you were appointed as a minister of — yes. just... you were appointed as a minister of state _ yes. just... you were appointed as a minister of state within _ yes. just... you were appointed as a minister of state within that - minister of state within that department. again, did the poor department's portfolio change with the name _ department's portfolio change with the name change? _ department's portfolio change with the name change? the?— department's portfolio change with the name change?— department's portfolio change with the name chance? , l, l, ~ the name change? they may have taken on here some — the name change? they may have taken on here some additional _ on here some additional responsibilities for skills. this has always been something that is a little bit unsure in government. should things like further and higher education he the responsibility of a department for education or should they set more in the department for business? it has moved around a bit over the years. what you are seeing here is really an emphasis more on skills. but i think in my experience of being in the department in these changes of name, perhaps the changes of name imply more change in substance than is really the case.—

is really the case. final question on this, is really the case. final question on this. was _ is really the case. final question on this, was there _ is really the case. final question on this, was there any _ is really the case. final question on this, was there any change i is really the case. final question j on this, was there any change to either— on this, was there any change to either the — on this, was there any change to either the allocation of civil servants _ either the allocation of civil servants working on post office matters — servants working on post office matters or the line management as a result— matters or the line management as a result of— matters or the line management as a result of the — matters or the line management as a result of the name change? no, matters or the line management as a result of the name change?— result of the name change? no, not as far as post _ result of the name change? no, not as far as post office _ result of the name change? no, not as far as post office matters - result of the name change? no, not as far as post office matters went. l as far as post office matters went. i want to than luck with your role as minister— i want to than luck with your role as minister of state —— then look. a government— as minister of state —— then look. a government position below the secretary of state, is that right? yesi _ secretary of state, is that right? yes. there — secretary of state, is that right? yes, there are basically three grades of minister, parliamentary undersecretary, mostjunior undersecretary, most junior minister, minister of undersecretary, mostjunior minister, minister of state, the middle ranking, if you will, secretary of state is the most senior, cabinet minister. you were sat in the middle rank. correct. what was your relationship like with the secretary of state in terms of the secretary of state in terms of the division of responsibility when

you joined — the division of responsibility when you joined as minister of state at the start — you joined as minister of state at the start, leaving the change of lord _ the start, leaving the change of lord mandelson aside at this point? the first— lord mandelson aside at this point? the first secretary of state i worked for in the department was john hutton, the secretary of state is responsible overall for everything a department does. the dti that became the business and regulatory reform department, it does a whole range of things. the secretary of state would have oversight for example of relations of key industrial sectors, automotive, aerospace and so on. there was a lot of european work in the department at that time. we were members of the european union at the time and there were what they called on the eu dossiers which had to have

a home department in the uk system. i under—secretary of state spent a fair bit of our time in brussels, luxembourg, negotiating the uk position on dossiers around things like working time directive, agency workers directive, other things that were relevant to the uk economy. really anything across the business economic environment, other than treasury matters and things like setting the budget and so on, we did not have anything to do with that. the secretary of state is when you are a minister of state as your boss. beneath the secretary of state, there will be two, three other ministers who will have a particular focus on different aspects of the department. during our time aspects of the department. during your time as _ aspects of the department. during your time as minister _ aspects of the department. during your time as minister of _

aspects of the department. during your time as minister of state, - aspects of the department. during your time as minister of state, to | your time as minister of state, to what _ your time as minister of state, to what extent if at all did you discuss _ what extent if at all did you discuss post office matters with the secretary _ discuss post office matters with the secretary of state?— secretary of state? well, in the earl art secretary of state? well, in the early part of _ secretary of state? well, in the early part of my _ secretary of state? well, in the early part of my tenure - secretary of state? well, in the early part of my tenure as - secretary of state? well, in the early part of my tenure as the l early part of my tenure as the minister, the big post office issue, the most dominant post office issue, it was around a closure programme called the network change programme. it had been decided before i became a minister in the department but it was being implemented while i was a minister, said that would have been theissue minister, said that would have been the issue that i would have discussed with the secretary of state most of all regarding postal affairs matters. it was very politically contentious. we were closing 2500 post offices out of a total network of roughly 14,000. it had been agreed with the post

office, but agreement in principle and in policy is quite different from implementation in practice. so, i certainly discussed that programme with the secretary of state in the first 15 months or so of my tenure as a minister and first 15 months or so of my tenure as a ministerand it first 15 months or so of my tenure as a minister and it was that programme which consumed, if you like, a lot of the political attention and energy of the department in regards to postal affairs. to give you an example, if affairs. to give you an example, if a post office in a particular area had been selected for closure, very often there would be... there might be a petition against that, there might be a parliamentary debate about the impact of the closure on the local community, there might be questions about it in parliament. it

was quite hot politically, that programme, and in terms of the postal affairs part of my brief, it was very much the dominant issue for about the first 15 months i was there. iii about the first 15 months i was there. l, ll, , about the first 15 months i was there. l, l l, , il, about the first 15 months i was there. l, l, , there. in that case you have 'ust mentioned fl there. in that case you have 'ust mentioned there i there. in that case you have 'ust mentioned there of i there. in that case you have 'ust mentioned there of where h there. in that case you have just mentioned there of where an . mentioned there of where an individual post office was raised for closure as part of the closure programme, to what extent would the department become involved with the underlying decision as to whether that should... whether the post office _ that should... whether the post office should or should not be closed? — office should or should not be closed? , l, �* l, ll, closed? they wouldn't. i do cover this in the — closed? they wouldn't. i do cover this in the written _ closed? they wouldn't. i do cover this in the written statement. - closed? they wouldn't. i do cover. this in the written statement. where the department was involved was in agreeing with the post office what the size of the network should be in the size of the network should be in the future and the idea behind the closure programme was that the network needed to reduce in size from 14,000 down to about 11,500.

so, it was losing somewhere between one in six, one in seven branches across the country. that is agreed as a policy, strategic objective. the reason being that the ministers previous to me and the post office management themselves thought the network had to be smaller to ensure its future financial viability as a whole. but when it came to selecting which of the 14,000 branches should close, i played no part in that. that was decided through this programme of local area reviews that were carried out by the post office themselves. that does not mean mps are not going to raise it in parliament because of course it affects their local community. but in terms of the decision—making, i

didn't sit with a map saying, we are going to close this branch and keep that when open. it was all a decision for the post office. you said earlier _ decision for the post office. you said earlier about _ decision for the post office. you said earlier about questions being raised _ said earlier about questions being raised in — said earlier about questions being raised in parliament, if it was raised. — raised in parliament, if it was raised, would you responsibly, it is a matter— raised, would you responsibly, it is a matter for— raised, would you responsibly, it is a matter for post office? yes, raised, would you responsibly, it is a matter for post office?— a matter for post office? yes, it would, certainly _ a matter for post office? yes, it would, certainly in _ a matter for post office? yes, it would, certainly in terms - a matter for post office? yes, it would, certainly in terms of - a matter for post office? yes, it would, certainly in terms of an l would, certainly in terms of an individual branch. i did lots of debates on this and the position would be that the mp, they might be raising a particular branch in their area, i will do is have to make clear in the debate i play no role in deciding which branch stays open, which branch stays closed, this is an operational matter for the post office. and there were some reasons for that, office. and there were some reasons forthat, notjust office. and there were some reasons for that, notjust the legislative basis of the postal services act, but also the way they decided to do

this closure programme wasn'tjust to ask for volunteers. stop this closure programme wasn't 'ust to ask for volunteersi to ask for volunteers. stop you there. i to ask for volunteers. stop you there- i am _ to ask for volunteers. stop you there. i am exploring - to ask for volunteers. stop you there. i am exploring the - to ask for volunteers. stop you i there. i am exploring the decision on operation versus policy, the underlying decision doesn't fall part of— underlying decision doesn't fall part of the terms of reference, i will pause — part of the terms of reference, i will pause you and move on. last question— will pause you and move on. last question on— will pause you and move on. last question on discussions with the secretary— question on discussions with the secretary of state, he mentioned focusing — secretary of state, he mentioned focusing on the closure programme —— you mentioned. did the best of your recollection, did you have a conversation with the secretary of state _ conversation with the secretary of state at _ conversation with the secretary of state at any point regarding the allegations made by sub—postmasters as to the _ allegations made by sub—postmasters as to the integrity of the horizon it system? | as to the integrity of the horizon lt system?— as to the integrity of the horizon l w system?_ can as to the integrity of the horizon i if system?_ can i it system? i don't believe so. can i 'ust ask it system? i don't believe so. can i just ask you. _ it system? i don't believe so. can i just ask you. out — it system? i don't believe so. can i just ask you, out of— it system? i don't believe so. can i just ask you, out of general- just ask you, out of general interest, i think he said mr hutton was the first secretary of state

that he served under, did lord mandelson follow him?- that he served under, did lord mandelson follow him? yes, he did. was there anyone _ mandelson follow him? yes, he did. was there anyone after _ mandelson follow him? yes, he did. was there anyone after lord - was there anyone after lord mandelson while you were minister of state? ila. just those two? mandelson while you were minister of state?- just those two?— mandelson while you were minister of state?- just those two? state? no. just those two? they were the two secretaries _ state? no. just those two? they were the two secretaries of _ state? no. just those two? they were the two secretaries of state _ state? no. just those two? they were the two secretaries of state over - the two secretaries of state over the two secretaries of state over the roughly three year period i was in the department.— in the department. thank you very much. in the department. thank you very much- sorry. _ in the department. thank you very much- sorry. mr— in the department. thank you very much. sorry, mr stevens. - in the department. thank you very much. sorry, mr stevens. not - in the department. thank you very much. sorry, mr stevens. not at l in the department. thank you very l much. sorry, mr stevens. not at all. pace 3, much. sorry, mr stevens. not at all. page 3. paragraph — much. sorry, mr stevens. not at all. page 3, paragraph nine, _ much. sorry, mr stevens. not at all. page 3, paragraph nine, of- much. sorry, mr stevens. not at all. page 3, paragraph nine, of the - page 3, paragraph nine, of the witness — page 3, paragraph nine, of the witness statement, please. you are referring paragraph 90 of appointment as minister of state. as you said _ appointment as minister of state. as you said new evidence, minister of state _ you said new evidence, minister of state a _ you said new evidence, minister of state a particular portfolio, area

of emphasis —— in your evidence. leading — of emphasis —— in your evidence. leading on — of emphasis —— in your evidence. leading on postal affairs, meeting with external stakeholders, being main _ with external stakeholders, being main ministerial point of contact for civil— main ministerial point of contact for civil servants covering these areas _ for civil servants covering these areas in — for civil servants covering these areas in the department. in terms of subject— areas in the department. in terms of subject areas, we have employment rightsi _ subject areas, we have employment rights, postalaffairs, subject areas, we have employment rights, postal affairs, your two areas? — rights, postal affairs, your two areas? , l, , rights, postal affairs, your two areas? , l, l rights, postal affairs, your two areas?_ "i rights, postal affairs, your two i areas?_ if we areas? yes, that is correct. if we turn to paragraph _ areas? yes, that is correct. if we turn to paragraph four, - areas? yes, that is correct. if we turn to paragraph four, page - areas? yes, that is correct. if we turn to paragraph four, page 16, | areas? yes, that is correct. if we i turn to paragraph four, page 16, of your statement. sorry, yes, page fouri _ your statement. sorry, yes, page four, paragraph 16. i may have said the other— four, paragraph 16. i may have said the other way, sorry. you say, issues — the other way, sorry. you say, issues in — the other way, sorry. you say, issues in the _ the other way, sorry. you say, issues in the employment relations area of— issues in the employment relations area of my— issues in the employment relations area of my portfolio included legislation going through parliament to improve employment rights. in terms _ to improve employment rights. in terms of— to improve employment rights. in terms of the balance between postal

affairs _ terms of the balance between postal affairs and _ terms of the balance between postal affairs and employment rights in your portfolio, how much time did each _ your portfolio, how much time did each take — your portfolio, how much time did each take up? it is your portfolio, how much time did each take up?— your portfolio, how much time did each take up? it is a good question. they were- -- _ each take up? it is a good question. they were- -- if _ each take up? it is a good question. they were... if we _ each take up? it is a good question. they were... if we are _ each take up? it is a good question. they were... if we are looking - each take up? it is a good question. they were... if we are looking at. they were... if we are looking at particularly in this first period, i almost see this as two halves, the first period being dominated by the post office closure programme. that took up a lot of time. on the employment relations side, also quite a lot, because we did have legislation and we had a lot of european work concerning that portfolio. there were other things i would be doing as well that are not covered in the title, just because the department covered quite a lot of areas. difficult to put a percentage on it. i'm going to do this very roughlyjust to give you an idea, but it will not be exact. i would say maybe on post office

matters in this first 15 months period, maybe a third, 40% of time in the roughly similar for employment relations, and may be the remaining 20% on other things not covered by that title. that changes in the second half of the period when i am acting as the lead spokesperson for the department across everything in the house of commons and probably in the second half postal affairs issues are a smaller part of the overall work. but in the first part of it particularly because of the closure programme, it is a very significant part of what i am doing. at programme, it is a very significant part of what i am doing.— part of what i am doing. at the time, part of what i am doing. at the time. looking _ part of what i am doing. at the time, looking at _ part of what i am doing. at the time, looking at the _ part of what i am doing. at the time, looking at the first - part of what i am doing. at the time, looking at the first part, | part of what i am doing. at the i time, looking at the first part, did you feel— time, looking at the first part, did you feel you had sufficient time as a minister— you feel you had sufficient time as a minister to deal with all of those areas _ a minister to deal with all of those areas of— a minister to deal with all of those areas of your portfolio? | a minister to deal with all of those areas of your portfolio?— areas of your portfolio? i don't think any _ areas of your portfolio? i don't think any minister _ areas of your portfolio? i don't think any minister ever - areas of your portfolio? i don't think any minister ever feels i areas of your portfolio? i don't i think any minister ever feels they have sufficient time. i think the

reality is ministers deal with a large volume of paperwork, a large volume of advice. they have a lot of meetings about things, internal meetings, and external meetings. it always feels quite time pressured. but that is what ministers have to do, that is theirjob.— do, that is their 'ob. second time eriod, do, that is their 'ob. second time period. you — do, that is theirjob. second time period, you have _ do, that is theirjob. second time period, you have already - do, that is theirjob. second time j period, you have already referred do, that is theirjob. second time i period, you have already referred to when _ period, you have already referred to when lord _ period, you have already referred to when lord mandelson became secretary of state _ when lord mandelson became secretary of state and you say in your statement, he said in your evidence today, _ statement, he said in your evidence today, because lord mandelson was a pier, today, because lord mandelson was a plan he _ today, because lord mandelson was a pier, he could not appear in the house — pier, he could not appear in the house of— pier, he could not appear in the house of commons.— pier, he could not appear in the house of commons. that is correct. you as minister— house of commons. that is correct. you as minister of— house of commons. that is correct. you as minister of state _ house of commons. that is correct. you as minister of state had - house of commons. that is correct. you as minister of state had to i house of commons. that is correct. you as minister of state had to deal with a _ you as minister of state had to deal with a wider range of issues in the house _ with a wider range of issues in the house of— with a wider range of issues in the house of commons. that with a wider range of issues in the house of commons.— with a wider range of issues in the house of commons. that is correct.

did that- -- — house of commons. that is correct. did that... wasn't _ house of commons. that is correct. did that... wasn't limited _ house of commons. that is correct. did that... wasn't limited to - house of commons. that is correct. did that... wasn't limited to simply| did that... wasn't limited to simply having _ did that... wasn't limited to simply having to _ did that... wasn't limited to simply having to answer more questions in the house — having to answer more questions in the house of commons when lord mandelson took over or did your decision—making, policy—making role decision—making, policy— making role also decision—making, policy—making role also expand? —— was it limited. i was also expand? —— was it limited. was involved also expand? —— was it limited. i was involved in a lot more things. on the postal and royal mail side in the second half of my period in the department, the focus was a lot more on royal mail. we had commissioned the who play review to look into the future of royal mail which we may come onto and that proved controversial in a different way from the post office closure programme —— hooper review. we were entering the period when the country was being hit by the great financial crash and a lot of businesses were seeking help from the department, there were big negotiations going on

about the future of the car industry in the uk, and the pretzel foot we were dealing with and the intensity increased in the second half of the period in which i was in office —— the breadth we were dealing with. it got busier, it got more intense, things got broader, partly because of the great financial crash which caused a lot of industrial problems which came to the department's door. as your portfolio, area of work, got husieri _ as your portfolio, area of work, got husieri how— as your portfolio, area of work, got busier, how did you satisfy yourself that the _ busier, how did you satisfy yourself that the post office was being effectively managed?-

that the post office was being effectively managed? well, on post office matters. _ effectively managed? well, on post office matters, things _ effectively managed? well, on post office matters, things seem - effectively managed? well, on post office matters, things seem to i effectively managed? well, on postl office matters, things seem to come down towards the end of the closure programme. because although it had been very difficult to implement that programme... pat mcfadden aaivin that programme... pat mcfadden giving evidence _ that programme... pat mcfadden giving evidence to _ that programme... pat mcfadden giving evidence to the _ that programme... pat mcfadden giving evidence to the inquiry i that programme... pat mcfadden giving evidence to the inquiry on | giving evidence to the inquiry on the post office and sub—postmasters who were wrongly convicted. and what role in particular the government at that time played. pat mcfadden was the minister responsible for the post office, 2007-2009. the minister responsible for the post office, 2007—2009. later we will be hearing from ed davey, post office minister 2010—2012. that is going out to blenheim palace where european leaders have been arriving and some 40 leaders in fact our meeting at blenheim palace, hosted of course by sir keir starmer. talks among them, migration. the

headlines: sir keir starmer welcomes dozens of european leaders to a major summit dozens of european leaders to a majorsummit in dozens of european leaders to a major summit in oxfordshire, including president zelensky. joe biden gets covid and pauses his campaign as more democrats reportedly tell him to quit his real action bid. donald trump's running matejd vance vows action bid. donald trump's running mate jd vance vows to fight for forgotten americans as he takes centre stage at the republican party convention. i centre stage at the republican party convention. , l, , l, convention. i stand here humbled and i am overwhelmed _ convention. i stand here humbled and i am overwhelmed with _ convention. i stand here humbled and i am overwhelmed with gratitude i convention. i stand here humbled and i am overwhelmed with gratitude to i i am overwhelmed with gratitude to say i officially accept your nomination to be vice president of the united states of america. the uk covid inquiry — the united states of america. the uk covid inquiry is _ the united states of america. the uk covid inquiry is due to _ the united states of america. the uk covid inquiry is due to deliver- covid inquiry is due to deliver its first report and it is expected to highlight failures in the pandemic preparation. and we hearfrom a nine—year—old chess champion.