>> good morning. >> good morning. >> it's 930 on wednesday, the 6th of december. this is britain's newsroom on gb news with andrew pierce and bev turner boris johnson's showdown. >> faces a covid >> the former pm faces a covid inquiry this morning. gb news presenter pip has more . presenter pip tomson has more. accountability, not weak apologies. >> that is what relative of bereaved families say they want. this morning from boris johnson. there are many of them here. he has lots of questions to answer. might explain why he's here for

two days. he starts giving evidence to the covid inquiry in less than 30 minutes . less than 30 minutes. >> the doctor won't see you now. junior doctors are planning nine days of strikes in december. in january, the longest walkout in nhs history, just in time for the christmas holiday. >> and rwanda . resignations >> and rwanda. resignations in coming rishi sunak faces ten ministers quitting over the rwanda treaty if he decides to circumvent the european convention on human rights to get the planes off the ground and a royal show of strength. >> the king queen camilla, prince and princess of wales were together last night in eventin were together last night in event in buckingham palace. meanwhile, prince harry's court case against the home office about his royal protection costs continue and nigel's still going strong. >> farage is one step closer to the jungle crown as he survives another elimination, celebrating with a little dance last night. we'll show you that full clip soon. brace yourself .

soon. brace yourself. >> and i voted for him again. well done on your little app that a young person put on your phone for you. >> that's brilliant. if you want to vote for nigel farage. of course, he survived another night jungle. he needs night in the jungle. he needs your if you want to vote your help. if you want to vote for your phone, scan for him, grab your phone, scan the code on screen and the qr code on the screen and download the app. you can vote for five a day for free. >> i remember voting then also for gb news. >> that's right. >> that's right. >> let us know your thoughts this morning on everything we're >> let us know your thoughts this mo about. n everything we're >> let us know your thoughts this mo about. can erything we're >> let us know your thoughts this mo about. can iything we're >> let us know your thoughts this mo about. can i just1g we're >> let us know your thoughts this mo about. can i just sayre're talking about. can i just say that of the four that royal picture of the four of pure class, the fab four. >> eat your heart out, harry and meghan. >> yeah, they've just risen aboveit >> yeah, they've just risen above it all like they do. this is what the queen would have done in my opinion. done as well, in my opinion. what you think? gb views at what do you think? gb views at cbnnews.com is the email address there are looking there they are looking absolutely resplendent last night, smiling. you can imagine what they might be saying through gritted teeth about harry and meghan. though, harry and meghan. first, though, this very latest this morning, the very latest news francis .

news with sam francis. >> bev, thank you very much. good morning. it's just >> bev, thank you very much. good morning. it'sjust coming good morning. it's just coming up to 933. the headlines this houn up to 933. the headlines this hour. borisjohnson up to 933. the headlines this hour. boris johnson is set to defend his handling of the pandemic as he appears before the covid inquiry the former prime minister is expected to admit that the government did make mistakes in its response to the virus, but argue that decisions made save lives decisions made save lives decisions rather save lives. he's already been heavily criticised by many of those who've given evidence and is claimed he was prepared to let the bodies pile high and was bamboozled by science gathering outside the inquiry. the families of those who died dunng families of those who died during the height of the pandemic are demanding answers will need to be accountable for these decisions led to the deaths of thousands of people who never should have died. >> if we'd have had a different government at the time, it wasn't so callous and chaotic . wasn't so callous and chaotic. thousands more people would have been alive. >> i believe that mrjohnson's

incompetent, his incompr isn't to the degree that he employed people like matt hancock as a health secretary who is clearly out of his depth and i just really want to sit here and look him in the eye and see what he has to say . has to say. >> up to ten mps are threatening to quit over the government's hard line approach on rwanda. the ten senior conservatives have issued a warning that overriding the european convention on human rights would cross what they've called a red line . it's after home secretary line. it's after home secretary james cleverly signed a new treaty in kigali yesterday, which he insists will resolve all of the supreme court's concerns in november. they ruled against the plan to send asylum seekers to the east african nation, calling it unlawful . nation, calling it unlawful. while james cleverly is due to due to deliver a statement in the commons later to update mps on a new agreement. crime and policing minister chris philp told us this morning that everyone needs to back the government. >> we need to make sure that this deal sticks and the bill

that's going to be prepared and presented in the near future will make sure that this is legally watertight and that, i think, is something that everybody will get behind in parliament. i think it's what the public expect to see as well, because illegal immigration on this scale is completely unacceptable. and the treaty that signed yesterday treaty that was signed yesterday and the bill that will follow will that. will end that. >> the high court has been told that prince harry was singled out and treated less favourably than others over his police protection. the duke of sussex is taking legal action against the decision in 2020 that he wouldn't get the same personal security when visiting the uk with his family. the home office argues his position changed, though , when he stepped back though, when he stepped back from role in 2020. the three from his role in 2020. the three day hearing due to end tomorrow is one of five legal cases that prince harry has pending in the high court . and commuters are high court. and commuters are facing another day of travel disruption today as train drivers walk out in their long running dispute over pay. members of the aslef union at

five operators are on for strike the next 24 hours. it's the latest in a series of stoppages this week . some of the busiest this week. some of the busiest commuter rail routes in the country will have limited services or no trains at all. aslef says its members will continue taking industrial action until they receive an improved pay offer on the one that was made earlier this year of just 8% over two years. and you can get more on all of those stories and many more by visiting our website, gbnews.com. now, though , more gbnews.com. now, though, more from andrew and . bev from andrew and. bev >> very good morning. it is 936 on wednesday morning . big day on wednesday morning. big day for former prime minister boris johnson is going to take centre stage at the covid inquiry shortly . what questions do you shortly. what questions do you want to see him asked at home? vaiews@gbnews.com is the email address. do you have any faith they're going to be asking the right questions? >> well, i mean, i we understand

from the briefings that boris wants talk where this wants to talk about where this wretched pandemic came from. michael tried that , didn't michael gove tried that, didn't he? ago. but he he? a week or two ago. but he will be pushed back. i'd really like him to be pushed back against the lawyers . let's see against the lawyers. let's see if he does. but i really want to know if. if his instincts were to resist lockdown , who to resist lockdown, who persuaded him not to? >> absolutely. that's what i'd like . all of that i agree with. like. all of that i agree with. and i don't think boris will be allowed. >> i mean, it's typical boris, isn't it, to want to go in there and to change the conversation to what he would like to discuss and i applaud him for that because i think wrong because i think the wrong conversation is are being had in that room. but i would like to see a little bit more emphasis on the facts, on the data, on the facts, because seeing enough on the data, on the facts, bethat. seeing enough on the data, on the facts, bethat. there's seeing enough on the data, on the facts, bethat. there's tooeeing enough on the data, on the facts, bethat. there's too much enough on the data, on the facts, bethat. there's too much he)ugh of that. there's too much he said she said, why did he say this and what was your relation ship don't about ship like? i don't care about their relationships. i don't care talk each care if they never talk to each other and of them other again and none of them will be in power when next will be in power when the next pandemic landed upon us by pandemic is landed upon us by the world health organisation. so they start adhering

so until they start adhering to the the data, it the facts in the data, all of it is pretty much meaningless because that's you need to because that's all you need to look facts and the data look at the facts and the data and can come to the and then you can come to the right conclusions. also want right conclusions. i also want to of things like, to see records of things like, i don't know you remember don't know whether you remember when did when dominic cummings did a parliamentary interrogation before about before the covid inquiry about what he said what had happened, and he said dunng what had happened, and he said during that time dominic cummings phrase, cummings used the phrase, we were talking to gates type were talking to bill gates type people. remember people. well, do you remember he made interesting made that really interesting comment. were talking bill comment. we were talking to bill gates . i want gates type people. i want to know worst, boris johnson talking gates and bill talking to bill gates and bill gates people, bill gates type people, because bill gates type people, because bill gates were much gates type people were very much invested and the invested in the vaccines and the lockdowns. you remember from lockdowns. if you remember from ferguson's infamous report, 16th of his report said of march 2020, his report said that we needed these lockdowns to ready for the for to get ready for the for a vaccine. well if the vaccine was already we needed to already ready and we needed to go into lockdowns because then they could and make they could roll out and make huge money. those are huge amounts of money. those are the questions i want asking. i don't they're going to don't think they're going to they're have little they're just i have very little faith. like every single faith. i feel like every single question. you know what the question. and you know what the media i'm sorry, andrew. media are. i'm sorry, andrew. you know, i get one. you know, i get off on one. don't say bev turner talking

about again. he's one. about covid again. he's on one. you're you're i'm you're lucky. you're lucky i'm here time like this. that's here at a time like this. that's all say. favourite hobby all i can say. favourite hobby horse conspiracy research topic. >> because you see, this used to be researching and reading. >> and it was only when the pandemic it became, pandemic suddenly it became, you don't do own don't want to do your own research, don't at things, research, don't look at things, don't things that used to don't read things that used to be, you know, we used be, you know, something we used to for doing to applaud people for doing was reading researching, but reading and researching, but apparently not from 2020. should we do. we move on? we do. >> we to because there are >> we got to because there are other big stories happening, not least a flipping doctors least a flipping junior doctors strike for strike outrage just for christmas. but we're told at ten ministers could quit over the government's hard line approach. rwanda. well, doesn't rishi rwanda. well, why doesn't rishi just sack them? >> that's right. let's get >> that's right. well, let's get the latest. >> over and done with. >> get it over and done with. >> get it over and done with. >> let's get the latest from our political editor, christopher hope is the hope this morning. what is the latest, chris? >> well, andrew and bev, this place is on resignation watch, not least those ten members of the one nation group or the kind of moderate tories might resign if the pm goes too hard and trying to withdraw from elements

of the human rights act. but on the other side, if it's watered down and understand this down and i do understand this bill is being determined today and unveiled tomorrow to parliament, might well be parliament, it might well be that ministers who support that other ministers who support a hard line approach like robert jenrick, the immigration minister, resign. so we minister, he will resign. so we are approaching an absolute critical this week for critical moment this week for the party and indeed for the tory party and indeed for the tory party and indeed for the policy on migration the party's policy on migration and whether it actually wants to deliver what it said it would do and bring down those net numbers and bring down those net numbers and bring down those net numbers and bring and also stop the boats because there's a real concern won't happen concern that won't happen with me. mark francois. he's me. now is mark francois. he's the research group the european research group chairman , mark francois, last chairman, mark francois, last night with the new conservatives , the common sense group, a big group of right wing tory mps. you announced a review of the treaty and you'll be reviewing the bill when it's published. why is that? >> yes, there was a meeting last night, several dozen night, as you say, several dozen tory the erg, the common tory mps, the erg, the common sense group, the new conservatives , and between us we conservatives, and between us we ask the star chamber as you

immediate nicknamed it, under sir bill cash, a team of legal experts to go through the bill with a fine tooth comb when it is published . and i'm sure they is published. and i'm sure they will look at the treaty to with the objective of ascertaining whether or not the bill fully respects parliamentary sovereignty and whether it contains unamba ambiguous language that would allow flights to take off to rwanda. thatis flights to take off to rwanda. that is what the star chamber will do, and they'll do that in days rather than weeks. >> and you're doing it because you don't trust the government to do a bill that's appropriate? >> we want understand >> well, we want to understand the effect of the bill. this is complex legal stuff. so we're very fortunate to have access to some of the best lawyers in the country. they will go through it and they will explain to us in layman's english exactly what the bill legally does and does not do. and the reason it's so important is unless the bill has what's called a knot, a withstanding clause , in other withstanding clause, in other words, one that says in these particular circumstances in the

boats , in the channel scenario, boats, in the channel scenario, the echr won't apply , then the echr won't apply, then unfortunately, the bill is likely to be ineffective. >> do you think this matters to ordinary people? >> absolutely. i was out canvassing my patch on canvassing in my patch on saturday morning, got pretty "ippy saturday morning, got pretty nippy for two hours. this was the number one issue on the doorstep beyond other. doorstep beyond any other. i spoke to one guy and he summed it up very well. he said, look, i don't understand the i don't understand all the technical legalities of this. that's what i elect. people like you do whatever you've you for. but do whatever you've got do to get these flights got to do to get these flights off to rwanda so we can stop these boats coming over here. that's my that's summed up what my constituents were me constituents were telling me again again for two hours. again and again for two hours. >> do you think the pm, mr sunak gets anger about gets that, gets that anger about this issue? >> well, said unambiguously, >> well, he said unambiguously, we stop the boats, but we we must stop the boats, but we haven't yet. so if you're going to will the ends you have to will the means. so we need watertight legislation. we had the nationalities and borders act that didn't do it. we had the illegal immigration act that didn't do it . the illegal immigration act that didn't do it. this the illegal immigration act that didn't do it . this is kind of

didn't do it. this is kind of for the public's point of view. three strikes and you're out . three strikes and you're out. >> i'm just finally, mark francois, a veteran, francois, you're a veteran, aren't you? the brexit wars. how big is this this week big a crisis is this this week for the party if it goes for the tory party if it goes wrong? i do sense it's bubbling up into quite a week. >> think there's a lot of pent >> i think there's a lot of pent up frustration on the backbenches this . the backbenches about this. the party promised our party has promised our constituents they're going to stop need stop the boats. we need legislation that will do that and we also need time to scrutinise it before we vote on it. there's a strong convention in the commons that you get a week between a bill being published and having vote published and having to vote on it. government very it. the government would be very unwise to try and bounce parliament on what is undoubtedly going to be controversial legislation. >> there you have andrew and >> there you have it. andrew and bev. warning from mark bev. a warning from mark francois , chairman the francois, the chairman of the european research of tory european research group of tory mps. us into mps. don't bounce us into agreeing work. agreeing a bill that won't work. i've been around a bit and i think this could be a really big week for the tory party. back to you. >> a look at the beautiful weather there in westminster this morning. >> yeah, not a very nice atmosphere there, though, i can tell you. febrile the

tell you. febrile is the mood i would the tory party is would say, in the tory party is that right? yeah. febrile. good word. >> they might not get any better today because it's the covid inquiry boris johnson is inquiry and boris johnson is there. go outside there. let's go live outside with gb presenter pip with gb news presenter pip tomson. pip. if tomson. good morning, pip. if people switching on, people are just switching on, what this module today? what what is this module today? what do . do we expecting. >> good morning to you both . >> good morning to you both. well, boris johnson is due to give evidence . he will be put give evidence. he will be put under the microscope by leading counsel to the inquiry. hugo keith kc, in about 50 minutes time. he arrived here. i think we can show you the pictures. he arrived a full three hours ahead of his appearance at about 7:00 this morning. it might have been to avoid the growing numbers of people who have been gathering and, well, a slot the media as well. i just want to actually show you the scene, what it's like here outside the building in paddington. there are numerous photographs of people who died during covid. many of their families have been here. i

think they're now queuing or have already made their way into the building. and then just over my shoulder, this my left shoulder, this this truck up as well with an truck turned up as well with an allegation about what boris johnson did say or didn't say dunng johnson did say or didn't say during lockdown . and also behind during lockdown. and also behind my cameraman, paul, during lockdown. and also behind my cameraman, paul , there's my cameraman, paul, there's banners that have even been put on the side of the pedestrian crossings as well. so it is a hugely anticipated appearance by bofis hugely anticipated appearance by boris johnson. he's going to be here for a full two days, giving evidence . families say they want evidence. families say they want a counter ability, not weak apology . liz, will they get it? apology. liz, will they get it? will bring you the latest here on gb news as thank you. >> pip pip thompson there at the cody gakpo just around the corner from here. actually we're joined in the studio by the leader of the reform party, richard editor richard tice, and former editor of labourlist edwards. of labourlist peter edwards. good morning, gentlemen. morning, can see the morning, richard. we can see the crowds there, who lost crowds there, people who lost loved ones from with covid i9 rightly feel that boris johnson

had a responsible duty to keep their loved ones safe. i personally think that is a bit of a fallacy and it's a bit much to say that boris johnson's responsibility was to stop those people. >> it was an impossible situation. there were no good answers, no easy choices. but this inquiry is a complete disaster from start to finish because all it's all about gotcha moments . the kc hugo gotcha moments. the kc hugo keith. he's acting like a sort of like a journalist in the most sort of just grungy little way, just digging and niggling away what they're not asking the simple, impartial, independent questions . and it's actually questions. and it's actually incredibly simple . what was the incredibly simple. what was the data that you were presented with, as you've just touched on, was lockdown the right thing to do or not? if it was the right thing to do, was the timing right or not? those are the simple answers. right or not? those are the simple answers . and then you simple answers. and then you look at when we have come look at when should we have come out the lessons you out and what are the lessons you learn that? it's in learn from that? it's in credibly simple. this thing is going years and years going to take years and years and here's what's going on. go

live. the former prime live. and the former prime minister boris johnson, talking about origin of the virus. about the origin of the virus. thatis about the origin of the virus. that is a very serious question required a completely required for a completely separate inquiry. a dead separate inquiry. this is a dead cat distraction from the two of them for the mistakes that they made. and that's what i think it's a very serious question where it came from. but don't distort this inquiry about the decisions they made at the centre of government and whether or not they were the right decisions. and you've got to do it in a sort of truth and reconciliation way, not a gotcha way, said. she you way, he said. she said, you know, actually we've all got to be grown ups about this, learn the lessons and learn them sharpish sweden their sharpish. sweden finished their inquiry almost two years ago, cost them less than £10 million. right. and they've learned that, frankly, scrap this whole inquiry. read the swedish summary job done. because do you think there should be a time limit on this? >> because arlene foster is coming the program a little coming on the program a little later. she told me before we came air, she's giving came on air, she's giving evidence next evidence in april and may next yeah evidence in april and may next year. thought april and year. and i thought april and

may year. then it's going may next year. then it's going to go for couple to go on for another couple years that. to go on for another couple yeaall that. to go on for another couple yeaall year:hat. to go on for another couple yeaall year that this should >> all year that this should have been should have had a have been a it should have had a time limit year. we've now time limit of a year. we've now we're now faced the situation i'm going be talking about i'm going to be talking about later scrap it or bin the barrister leading it the barrister leading it and the chair again. yeah chair and start again. yeah because where they're because we know where they're coming or having a very timely i mean, this is serious. this is this costing hundreds of this is costing hundreds of millions cash. it's millions of taxpayers cash. it's going not going to take years. we're not going to take years. we're not going lessons and going to learn the lessons and it's an establishment stitch up and cover up. so frankly, it's infuriating. >> so i don't disagree with anything you've said there, richard. but who is richard. but so who who is responsible, saying responsible, peter, for saying this go ahead. this this had to go ahead. is this this had to go ahead. is this this is civil service this is a civil service exercise, again, isn't it, to hang the tang the tories out to dry, maybe? >> no , i think i disagree with >> no, i think i disagree with all of that. richard said this is a government choice, whether there's cross—party support to have clearly is going have an inquiry clearly is going on very long time. and i on for a very long time. and i think. do you think it was for too i'm not sure too long? well, i'm not sure what end point is. you might what the end point is. you might know they're talking about 20, 26, we're now know they're talking about 20, 26,we're now 2020.

>> we're now in 2020. >> we're now in 2020. >> to me, that's too far. and that's an old phrase about justice justice denied . justice delayed. justice denied. and a bereaved family and if you're a bereaved family member, know what member, you want to know what happened. whether happened. but i think whether you're covid or you're bereaved by covid or by lockdown , you didn't interrupt, lockdown, you didn't interrupt, richard. let me richard. right. so let me let me try answer question. try and answer the question. richard gotcha richard says there are gotcha moments. think it's the moments. i think it's the absolute antithesis antithesis of we have very slow of that. we have a very slow moving we're all moving inquiry. we're all talking how slow moving talking about how slow moving is. methodical . and is. it's methodical. and you could say, we only could either say, do we only look and numbers or do look at stats and numbers or do we quality and we look at the quality and transparency decision making? transparency of decision making? well, we look the well, of course, we look at the transparency of decision making. and very concerned and then i was very concerned by what when he says what richard says when he says richard a serving politician, richard is a serving politician, although the house of although not one in the house of commons we've got commons saying we've got a pubuc commons saying we've got a public inquiry backed by the government , which is elected by government, which is elected by the people, and we should sack the people, and we should sack the barristers because he doesn't like them and it's wrong to behave like journalists, but journalists and barristers both have of asking questions. have a job of asking questions. >> clear, biased >> he's got a clear, biased agenda. peter, sorry. he's agenda. peter, i'm sorry. he's he's trying to target he's he's trying to target brexit. then brexit. and then when i criticise that richard shouts me down. >> no, but, well, this is you're

here to have a debate, independent analysis, peter. >> it's not like a gotcha >> it's not to act like a gotcha journalist. there's a key difference. >> it's going for on how >> it's going for on years. how can a moment if we can it be a gotcha moment if we have a methodical inquiry that's so slow all complain so slow we all complain about the it, this is the duration of it, but this is the duration of it, but this is the point. >> i mean, i like so much of the last three years, there is huge amounts of money being made out of continuing now of this drama and continuing now with and with the lawyers. and if somebody government had somebody in government had had more have more sense, they would have said, we have a time said, all right, we have a time limit on it's in limit on it. but it's in everybody's interest to drag it out. you can see surely out. you can see that surely this is is a sham, you this is this is a sham, you know, with the taxpayers expense. >> for various >> we've all, for various reasons, sat in court at different points in our lives. >> judge. it runs a court >> it's a judge. it runs a court just because a barrister or a king's counsel earns fees. they have in duration. have no say in the duration. it's down the judge. the it's down to the judge. the judge runs a court. >> long do you think it >> how long do you think it should go on for? >> to me, as a layman, i'm neither a barrister or a medical professional. making professional. i'm against making up an i'm against up an opinion. i'm against making an arbitrary deadline. making up an arbitrary deadline. but there should but i do think there should be an point. because an end point. yes, because i think mind that

think that focuses mind and that delivers justice for the families. but for me as a layman to say, well, it should be 14 months, not 13. but peter, months, but not 13. but peter, i'd no for that all. >> how come sweden has done it already? >> i speyer i can i do prepare to come on this show. >> but looking at the swedish legal system is a bit of an arcane one for me to research. >> hang a european >> hang on. it's a european country. they went through covid like done their like we did. they've done their inquiry. they didn't lock down and i think it and they didn't. i think it started earlier. >> that right? started earlier. >> thit right? started earlier. >> thit did.il? started earlier. >> thit did. but but but it >> yes, it did. but but but it didn't it didn't take a year. >> and difference >> and it's the difference between a well—run country and a badly country. they up badly run country. they set up their within a few their inquiry within a few months covid starting. they months of covid starting. they started of started they set the terms of reference in parallel. they run their properly. that's their country properly. that's their country properly. that's the think a legitimate >> i think there's a legitimate question be said the question to be said of the british political system or broadly inquiries very broadly the inquiries are very so and often they're over so slow and often they're over deeply distressing so slow and often they're over deeply that distressing so slow and often they're over deeply that absolutelyessing matters that absolutely deserve pubuc public scrutiny, like child sex abuse both. hillsborough and abuse or both. hillsborough and the horrific aftermath of the families. back families. but it goes back to that point justice delayed that point that justice delayed is justice denied. >> we just need to ask you, you want the junior

want to bring in the junior doctors. is the biggest doctors. this is the biggest strike the strike in the history of the nhs. just before christmas. richard tice the cynicism is breathtaking. have been breathtaking. there have been whatsapp have whatsapp messages that have been seen doctors laughing. seen with doctors laughing. we can christmas holiday. >> i mean, it's just appalling and i think public and i think whatever public sympathy had would sympathy they had and many would say that they justifiably have some i think some some cause, but i think they are losing it. absolutely in spades to do it. just before christmas the most christmas and just into the most dangerous time year when dangerous time of the year when elderly people, vulnerable people are likely to people are most likely to suffer. and these people who go on strike, should be on strike, they should be ashamed themselves. it's ashamed of themselves. it's nothing disgusting what nothing short of disgusting what they're doing. >> think you're going >> you think you're going to condemn the strike? well, no. >> they are exercising their their legal rights. >> there are 35% pay rise christmas people are most christmas when people are most vulnerable 35% rise. vulnerable for 35% pay rise. >> they'll never get >> peter well, they'll never get that. they that. well, why are they striking it then? striking for it then? >> to me that >> because they have to me that is hard line a negotiating is too hard line a negotiating position. and neither of the parties win the general parties that can win the general election, tory, have election, labour or tory, have supported so they won't supported that. so they won't get 35. the criticism of the government has that they government has been that they were ho in negotiations were too gung ho in negotiations or offer negotiations

or they'd offer negotiations without anything to do with money, which kind of pointless. >> so you support the timing of this strike? >> no, i don't want to >> no, because i don't want to see a strike at all. they should call off. call it off. >> think they should negotiate. >> but i'd make another point. having been on strike myself as a a journalist, a member of a as a journalist, a member of the wasn't a former the nuj, as i wasn't a former life i don't know if you life and i don't know if you were, but never been the people taking because taking industrial action because they about the public, they care about the public, their servants. i was their servants. so, so i was just newspaperjournalist just a newspaper journalist that's not on same that's clearly not on the same level but you level as saving lives. but you take industrial action because level as saving lives. but you takecarertrial action because level as saving lives. but you takecare about action because level as saving lives. but you takecare about yourn because level as saving lives. but you takecare about your readers se level as saving lives. but you takecare about your readers and you care about your readers and the product doctors take industrial action because they care health service care about the health service and patients, they care about the health service and care patients, they care about the health service and care about|ts, they care about the health service and care about how they care about the health service and care about how themoney also care about how much money they're making themselves care about. think they wouldn't >> well, i think they wouldn't be strike. >> well, i think they wouldn't be well, strike. >> well, i think they wouldn't be well, i strike. >> well, i think they wouldn't be well, i don'tze. >> well, i think they wouldn't be well, i don't think you can >> well, i don't think you can say don't care about the say they don't care about the patients if they care about the patients, they wouldn't do it at christmas year. christmas and new year. >> the most vulnerable time. >> the most vulnerable time. >> thank you >> peter, richard, thank you so much for kicking us off. >> so as we've said, the former prime minister is going to address in the address the covid inquiry in the next minutes. do go next few minutes. do not go anywhere. is britain's

anywhere. this is britain's newsroom on news. the newsroom on gb news. the people's newsroom on gb news. the peoa e's newsroom on gb news. the peoa brighter outlook boxt >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar weather on gb news. >> good morning. welcome to your latest gb news weather update from the met office. it'll be a dry and bright day for many of us, but it's still feel rather cold the chilly start . but cold after the chilly start. but later on we'll see some rain arriving in the west. now there's an ice warning in force still the morning still through the morning across northeastern scotland northeastern areas of scotland and elsewhere , though, we'll see and elsewhere, though, we'll see plenty of dry and clear weather through much of the day. any freezing fog should slowly lift and a further south and and clear a further south and west. the sunshine will west. but the sunshine will start to turn a little bit hazier across western of hazier across western parts of the uk and rain will arrive into northern ireland. temperatures will start to rise, though. highs of 12 degrees in the scilly isles later. still feeling cold in east. feeling very cold in the east. however, despite sunshine however, despite the sunshine and then that rain through tonight push further east. tonight will push further east. we've weather warnings we've got weather warnings in force of northern force for parts of northern ireland and then ireland overnight and then tomorrow parts of tomorrow morning into parts of the of uk . that the south—west of the uk. that could bring some hill snow to parts of the pennines and

scotland for a time. but mostly we'll of heavy we'll be seeing a lot of heavy rain. temperatures as a result will slowly start to rise. so there's less of risk of a there's much less of a risk of a frost through tonight and then through thursday, rain through thursday, the rain really so quite really does continue. so quite a damp , cloudy day and with damp, cloudy day and with weather warnings in force through much the day across through much of the day across parts scotland these parts of scotland and these western areas, many of us will see rain on and off throughout the day. there could be water lingering on the roads as well. so do take care of your travelling throughout thursday. later though, in west we later on, though, in the west we will sunshine return and will see the sunshine return and temperatures rising into double digits of i'll see digits for many of us. i'll see you later. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boiler as sponsors of weather on . gb news. well weather on. gb news. well thanks, danny. >> any minute now, the big moment you've all been waiting for. boris johnson will take centre stage at last at the covid inquiry stay tuned because you don't want to miss it.

>> i'm michelle dewberry and i'm not here to tell you what to think. i'd much rather hear what you have to say, sir. send in your opinions to gb views at cbnnews.com. keep them clean and you never know . i cbnnews.com. keep them clean and you never know. i might read them out with my panel here on dewbs& co we debate, we get stuck into the issues of the day on a show where all views are welcome, especially early. yours gb news is the people's channel.

britain's us news. channel >> well, the former prime minister, boris johnson , is at minister, boris johnson, is at the covid inquiry. he's going to be speaking at any moment now. >> that's right. we're joined in the studio by the former first minister ireland, minister of northern ireland, dame arlene foster. arlene, good to we just chatting. >> was going to say >> arlene, i was going to say that we've been promoted. arlene. >> she's she's a de—man of baroness. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> what's best? oh, they're both pretty nice. yeah. fair >> were just chatting, >> we were just chatting, weren't and actually, you weren't we? and actually, you reminded you've already reminded me that you've already given covid given evidence that the covid inquiry will inquiry once. and you will be again the what was it again in the spring. what was it like on the first occasion? well you it is quite intense. you know, it is quite intense. >> and i always to remember >> and i always have to remember that people lost that there are people who lost loved covid and not loved ones during covid and not only to covid. and we were just speaking about this. people who weren't diagnosed cancer weren't diagnosed with cancer early so earlier early enough and so died earlier , really we took upon , people who really we took upon themselves mental health difficulties because of covid,

isolated the thing i'm most concerned about and i've already said this on the record , are our said this on the record, are our young people and the fact that we close schools and the fashion that we did. and interestingly, there was a study just yesterday about the fact that we have fallen behind again because of the fact that our schools were closed and we had made gains in relation to literacy and mathematics, and we've fallen back now because of that. and i mean, those are sorts of mean, those are the sorts of things i would like the inquiry to on actually. what are to focus on actually. what are the lessons to be learned from closing from isolation closing schools from isolation in our older people and not allowing them the quality of life their their last days? life in their their last days? those the sorts things those are the sorts of things i would to and why how big would like to and why how big a difficult, how difficult decision was it for you to close down schools in northern ireland? it was incredibly difficult. i mean, difficult. incredibly. i mean, i've i've been difficult. incredibly. i mean, i've some i've been difficult. incredibly. i mean, i've some difficultaen difficult. incredibly. i mean, i've some difficult times in through some difficult times in politics in northern ireland, but i would easily say covid was the most difficult time for making decisions about closing down economies. yeah pushing

people into their homes , not people into their homes, not allowing them to mix with other people socially. and in northern ireland, when somebody passes away, a very good away, we have a very good tradition , i think, to help with tradition, i think, to help with grief, you know, going to people's houses, going to wakes, socialising together before the funeral , all socialising together before the funeral, all of that was stripped away and actually it has caused real difficulty. i think that people were very much alone when they lost loved ones very isolated. and, you know , very isolated. and, you know, there were horrific stories of old gentleman standing beside the grave of their wives on their own during funerals . it their own during funerals. it was a really terrible time , was a really terrible time, awful time. but, look, we were all terrified out of our minds when this thing came along and, of course, mistakes were made and those mistakes will be reflected, i think , by boris reflected, i think, by boris today as well. >> and were you basing your decisions science that decisions on the science that was coming out of number 10? >> yes, we were getting the same sage and then our own sage advice and then our own chief medical officer or chief scientific in northern scientific adviser in northern ireland was interpreting that

for the executive in for us in the executive in northern ireland. >> and was there pushback >> and was there much pushback against no? against lockdown or no? >> because again, especially in the i think the first lockdown, i think everybody frightened and everybody was so frightened and we getting predictions of we were getting predictions of thousands of people dying and setting up temporary morgues and all this sort of thing. i all of this sort of thing. i mean, we were really scared of that. >> but was there a lack of supply? >> ticism oh, yes . >> ticism oh, yes. >> ticism oh, yes. >> was there a lack of i mean, when you look back now and you think those initial images that came out of china of people face planting at the train station in china, pure chinese propaganda welding doors suits welding up doors in hazmat suits , trying the west , just trying to let the west think this is this is going to bnng think this is this is going to bring you down. going to bring you down. it's going to bnng bring you down. it's going to bring down. it almost did. bring you down. it almost did. we're still recovering from it. there was a lack of cynicism about propaganda. there was a lack of cynicism abothere propaganda. there was a lack of cynicism abothere was. paganda. there was a lack of cynicism abothere was. pagand'course, >> there was. and of course, we'd seen images from italy, we'd seen the images from italy, northern you remember northern italy. you remember those people dying on on hospital trolleys and what have you. and i think people that's what spooked the government most. think true. and most. i think it was true. and then i don't think there was enough scrutiny in terms of the harms that lockdown caused . but

harms that lockdown caused. but that's with hindsight, because at the time it seemed to be the only thing that we could do to protect out our citizens. and yeah, i hope that i hope the inquiry does look at what we should have been looking at. we've already looked at the preparedness module . well, you preparedness module. well, you know, were we ready for something like this? and there were obviously gaps there. i think identified. think that will be identified. but we're to the but now we're coming to the rollout of the lockdown and that's what will be that's what boris will be talking about today. >> one the i mean, rishi >> and one of the i mean, rishi will be spot about this. will be on the spot about this. he chancellor of the he was chancellor of the exchequer. was the exchequer. there was all the modelling about impacts on health health. but health and mental health. but was modelling on the was there any modelling on the impact on the economy? and if not, not? yeah. well not, why not? yeah. well initially don't think initially i don't think we certainly weren't looking at certainly we weren't looking at the impact on the economy and people when you even raise the impact on the economy. >> oh, i'm caring. >> oh, i'm caring. >> the media was sort of, oh, you're picking our well—being and our survival over the economy. so what about the economy? and my response to that

at the time, which wasn't really very welcome by a lot of the media in northern ireland, was the fact that actually people need a job for their mental health to keep their families going . if you're losing your going. if you're losing your business, if your business is going down the swanny, then that's going to have an impact on you as well. never mind catching covid. so yeah , it's catching covid. so yeah, it's a very difficult time, i think. bofis very difficult time, i think. boris will probably want to reflect that he believed he took the right decisions. however we it'll be, it'll for be the inquiry then too. okay. >> hugo keith kc was in shot bofis >> hugo keith kc was in shot boris johnson just being sworn in. >> he's got the bible in his right hand. if you're listening on the radio, he looks like he's combed his hair fairly smartly dressed. he's got his tie on. he's sitting down. and hugo keith will ask the first question the grandstanding question and the grandstanding in begin giving us in my view, will begin giving us your full name . your full name. >> alexander. boris de pfeffel johnson. >> thank you , mrjohnson . >> thank you, mr johnson. >> thank you, mr johnson. >> thank you for attending today and for the provision of your

witness statement . 255836. it's witness statement. 255836. it's dated the 31st of august. as you know , and it contains the usual know, and it contains the usual declaration as to the truth of its contents on the final page , its contents on the final page, i think page . 233 mrjohnson , i think page. 233 mrjohnson, you were, of course , as prime you were, of course, as prime minister between . the 24th of minister between. the 24th of july 2019, when you were invited to form an administration following the resignation of theresa may, mp as leader of the conservative party and the 6th of september 20, 22, you having announced your resignation earlier that year on the 7th of july, is that correct? >> yes, it is. mr keith. by your leave your can i just say how glad i am to be at this inquiry

and how sorry i am for the pain and how sorry i am for the pain and the loss and the suffering of the covid victims. >> please sit down. >> please sit down. >> please sit down, or i'm afraid you'll have to leave the heanng afraid you'll have to leave the hearing room . i'm sorry if you hearing room. i'm sorry if you don't sit down, i'm going to ask the ushers to get you to leave right ? the ushers to get you to leave right? right. the ushers to get you to leave right ? right. could ushers, right? right. could ushers, please. could you ask them to leave . leave. >> could i say by your leave that i understand the feelings of these victims and their families . and i am deeply sorry families. and i am deeply sorry for the pain and the loss and the suffering of those victims and their families . and grateful and their families. and grateful , though i am to the hundreds of thousands of health care workers

and many other public servants , and many other public servants, people in all walks of life who help to protect our country throughout dreadful pandemic. i do hope that this inquiry will help to get the answers to the very difficult questions that those victims and those families are rightly are asking so that we can protect ourselves better, help each other, to help protect ourselves better in the future and prevent further suffering . and prevent further suffering. if it's not too impertinent, may if it's not too impertinent, may i say , as the person, as you i say, as the person, as you rightly say, mr keith, who set up this inquiry, how grateful i am to you for what you're doing and for the immense care that you are plainly taking ? thank you are plainly taking? thank you are plainly taking? thank you , mrjohnson . you, mr johnson. >> just you, mrjohnson. >> just a few more questions, more, please, in relation to your career , on the 9th of june

your career, on the 9th of june 2023, did you announce your intention to stand down as the member of parliament for oxford and south ruislip? you then formally resigned the following monday , the 12th of june, when monday, the 12th of june, when you were appointed steward and bailiff of the three hundreds of chiltern. you were, of course, previously foreign secretary and mayor of london you do correctly observe that you yourself announced the institution of this statutory inquiry on the 12th of may 2021. you ordered the institution of a full and independent public inquiry, did you not? >> i did . mr you not? >> i did. mr keith and i you not? >> i did . mr keith and i believe >> i did. mr keith and i believe that's the right way forward . that's the right way forward. >> when you made that announcement, you said this amid such tragedy, the state has an obugafion such tragedy, the state has an obligation to examine its actions as rigorously and candidly as possible . the number

candidly as possible. the number of deaths across the united kingdom calculated , whether by kingdom calculated, whether by registration on the death certificate through covid or the measure of excess deaths , is now measure of excess deaths, is now over 230,000 . by any measure, mr over 230,000. by any measure, mr johnson, that is a shocking figure and a terrible loss of life is that the tragedy to which you were referring when you said in this tragedy, the state has an obligation to examine its actions ? examine its actions? >> that is certainly the core of the tragedy . yes the tragedy. yes >> do you agree to that ? if the >> do you agree to that? if the protection of life is the pre—eminent duty that every government owes to its citizens , government owes to its citizens, then the number of those who died is an important, if not the

most important marker against which your administration be measured . measured. >> i certainly think it's the it was what we were trying to prevent was the loss of life. absolutely >> the virus left in its wake, of course, not just death, but injury and misery. and indirectly through the lockdown towns. it left pain and incalculable economic and societal damage were those and are those impacts which you also envisaged this inquiry would look at when you ordered its institution ? of course . do you institution? of course. do you accept ? and we may i think , accept? and we may i think, presume from your opening remarks that you do. do you accept that the bereaved and those who suffered of whom there are very many in number are entitled to no less than an absolutely full and rigorous scrutiny? of course , i when you scrutiny? of course, i when you made that announcement, but you

also said that this process will place the state's actions under the microscope . and the the microscope. and the government would be required to disclose all relevant information . in light of those information. in light of those words. could i just ask you, please, to confirm what your approach has been to the disclosure of your own covid related emails? whatsapps and notes . i've done my best to give notes. i've done my best to give everything of any conceivable relevance . has that always been relevance. has that always been your position, mr johnson relevance. has that always been your position, mrjohnson ? relevance. has that always been your position, mr johnson ? yes. your position, mr johnson? yes. could we have two six, 5619, please ? page 68. this is a please? page 68. this is a whatsapp between your former permanent secretary in number 10 and then latterly cabinet secretary and your principal private secretary, simon case , private secretary, simon case, and respectively, martin

reynolds and the cabinet secretary said the prime minister is mad if he doesn't think his whatsapps will become pubuc think his whatsapps will become public via the covid inquiry. he was clearly not in the mood for that discussion tonight. that date, the 20th of december 2021, was just five days after you had in fact appointed milady as the chair of this inquiry was there a debate at that time within government as to whether or not your whatsapps should be disclosed ? and if so , whether or disclosed? and if so, whether or not they would become public by virtue of their disclosure in this process. >> i don't remember that the conversation to which the cabinet secretary is referring and i've handed over all the relevant whatsapps the inquiry hasindeed relevant whatsapps the inquiry has indeed requested all the key covid related text whatsapps and so on. so on. >> so on. >> from january 22nd, february 22nd, and it must be made absolutely clear that throughout the course of the litigation in

the course of the litigation in the summer and throughout these proceedings, you have made available , it would seem available, it would seem everything in your possession you made clear, i think through your solicitor solicitors, however, that you had a phone which you used from may 2021 and you've made available the whatsapps and the emails from that phone . and therefore that phone. and therefore between may 21st and february 22nd, the end of the period that the inquiry was requesting about. but following a well publicised security breach , publicised security breach, which you had not been able to use the to access the previous phone because you'd stopped using it and you were fearful that if you tried to access it, you'd delete its data. is that right? that's right. were you able to get access ultimately to the contents of that first phone? the old phone, yes . phone? the old phone, yes. >> so we sent it to off some technical people and they they activated. >> it was there a time gap as

your solicitors have described it on that phone in a period between . the 30th january 2020 between. the 30th january 2020 and june 2020, during which time the whatsapps have not been. yes capable of being . reinstalled capable of being. reinstalled and disclose . ed that's right. and disclose. ed that's right. do you know why your phone was missing those 5000 odd whatsapps ? >> 7. >>i 7- >> i don't 7— >> i don't know 7 >> i don't know the exact reason , but it looks as though it's something to do with the app going down and then coming up again . but somehow now not it. again. but somehow now not it. it automatically erasing all the things between that date when it went down and the moment when it

was last backed up . so i, i was last backed up. so i, i can't give you the technical explanation , but that's the best explanation, but that's the best i'm able to give the technical report that your solicitors kindly provided demonstrates that there may have been a factory reset of the phone at the end of january 2020 and then in an attempt to reinstall the contents later in june 2020, may i just ask you this was it you if that was a factory reset that was done, was it you that tried to reset the phone or not? a factory reset ? factory reset? >> there was a there is a device or a capability on the phone which allows its contents to be entirely reset. that wasn't you. >> i don't remember any such . >> i don't remember any such. >> i don't remember any such. >> and during the course of the litigation this summer between the inquiry and the cabinet office, did you of course make plain your your stated wish that the whatsapp switch were the subject of that litigation should be disclosed? yes. they've been your own whatsapps

all right. >> for the avoidance of doubt, make it absolutely clear i haven't removed any whatsapps from my phone and i've given you everything that i think you need i >>i -- >> i ask -_ >> i ask mrjohnson because this issue has been trailed in the press . yeah, no, i get you. and press. yeah, no, i get you. and it's important that you have an opportunity of explaining why those whatsapps are not available in your witness statement at paragraph ten, you say, mrjohnson, statement at paragraph ten, you say, mr johnson, that unquestionably mistakes were made . and for those you say you made. and for those you say you unreservedly apologise as we have the statement, there , i'd have the statement, there, i'd like you please to set out in broad terms of course, we'll be looking at the detail of it later, but in broad terms , what later, but in broad terms, what mistakes you refer to there beanng mistakes you refer to there bearing in mind that we are only concerned in this module. mr johnson with the core decision making, with the lockdown decisions, the npis , the non—pharmaceutical interventions, and so on, not

vaccines , therapeutics, vaccines, therapeutics, antivirals , what mistakes do you antivirals, what mistakes do you unquestionably unquenched accept were made ? were made? >> well, i think if you look at my statement , i point out that my statement, i point out that we were relying so much on messaging to help contain the virus and we needed a the public to understand the message in as straightforward a way as as possible. and they they really did, by and large . one problem did, by and large. one problem we had that i mentioned is that because of the very natural and proper right of the devolved administrations to have their own approach , sometimes there own approach, sometimes there was a bit of so the bbc news would would have one message from number 10, then a slightly different one from scotland or wherever. and that i think we

need to sort that out in future and i'm sure there are plenty of other things that we could have done differently. but but i have no doubt that will come to them in the course of the examination. so your position today is and you've appeared to refer to it as the first issue that the primary mistake made rests in the context of the messaging and the all communications with the devolved administrations. you asked me to cite a mistake that we made. i didn't say that was the primary mistake. >> what what primary mistakes , >> what what primary mistakes, mr johnson, are you referring to in paragraph ten when you say there was terrible suffering , there was terrible suffering, but in relation to which where we failed, i apologise again for what are you apologising in that statement ? statement? >> well, i think just to go back to your your your main point, which is that so many people suffered, so many people lost

their lives inevitably in the course of trying to handle a very, very difficult pandemic in which we had to balance this appalling harms on either side of the of the decision on we may have have made mistakes. i think it i do not want to try to anticipate the discussion which i'm sure we will get into about the timings of npis of lockdowns . in inevitably we got some things wrong. i think we were doing our best at at the time, given what we knew , given the given what we knew, given the information i had available to me at the time. i think we did our level best were there things that we should have done

differently ? unquestionably but differently? unquestionably but i would i would struggle to itemise them all before you now in a in a in a hierarchy , i'm in a in a in a hierarchy, i'm afraid i think it would be i'd find it easier. afraid i think it would be i'd find it easier . to try and find it easier. to try and explain what happened as we went through . through. >> you say in your witness statement, we i unquestionably made mistakes . can you draw a made mistakes. can you draw a distinction for us, please, between yourself personally and the government ? to what extent the government? to what extent do you accept? i take personal responsibility as opposed to accepting it on behalf of your administration. >> so i take personal responsibility for all the decisions that we made . it's decisions that we made. it's obvious, mrjohnson, decisions that we made. it's obvious, mr johnson, that decisions that we made. it's obvious, mrjohnson, that many obvious, mr johnson, that many of the most difficult and momentous decisions rested upon your own shoulders as prime minister >> do you take responsibility

for whatever my lady makes of the speed of the government's response in january, february , response in january, february, march of 2020, of course. and the way in which the various moving parts of the government, the advisory committees , the the advisory committees, the departments, the agencies and so on responded . and of course , do on responded. and of course, do you take responsibility for the lockdown decisions? whichever way they went and their timely ness? whatever my lady makes of them , the manner in which them, the manner in which patients were discharged from hospitals into the care sector, of course , the explosion of the of course, the explosion of the virus within the residential care sector . the general speed care sector. the general speed at which the restriction were eased. yes the eat out to help out scheme and then latterly in 2020, the decision not to introduce a circuit breaker in september or october or to introduce a tier system earlier when the prevalence of the virus was lower for good or ill.

>> yes , we did have local >> yes, we did have local restrictions from a very early day. did may i just ask you, please , this question also , you please, this question also, you you refer to mistakes. >> it's very important that the inquiry understands to what extent it's accepted that there were mistakes as opposed to an acceptance that with hindsight, the government could have done better . do you mean there were better. do you mean there were failings as things or decisions that you got avoidably wrong , that you got avoidably wrong, whether because they were the wrong decisions or because your management and leadership meant that the right decisions were less likely to be taken? or do you mean with hindsight that you just could have done better ? just could have done better? >> so that's a sort of deterministic question, isn't it? well, it's an important i think i think the answer is that with hindsight, it may be easy

to see things that we could have done differently or it may be possible to see things that we could have done differently at the time . i felt and i know that the time. i felt and i know that everybody else felt that we were doing our best in very difficult circumstances to protect life and protect the nhs . and protect the nhs. >> it is impossible and arguably improper to attribute any individual death causally to any particular governmental decision as i know you know, and no possible purpose would be served in such an exercise . but do you in such an exercise. but do you accept that overall the government decision making , not government decision making, not the pandemic, but the government decision making in response led materially to there being a greater number of excess deaths in the united kingdom than might otherwise have been the case? >> i, i cannot give you the answer to that question. i'm not

sure i noticed . the that in your sure i noticed. the that in your opening preamble a few months ago, you produced a slide saying that the uk was, i think second only to italy for excess deaths. correct that's not the best of my knowledge. the case and i think that many all i would say is that many other countries such suffered terrible losses from covid. they did . and the from covid. they did. and the evidence that i've seen suggests that we were well down the european table and well done. the world table , that is, of the world table, that is, of course, no comfort to the bereaved and their and their families that that seems to be the statistical reality. >> the evidence before, milady, is that the united kingdom had one of the highest rates of excess death in europe . almost

excess death in europe. almost all other western european countries had a lower level of excess deaths. i've seen it was tragic in a worse position than the united kingdom . the united kingdom. >> i do not wish to contradict you, mr keith, but the evidence, the ons data i saw put us, i think, about 16 or 19 in a table of 33 in western europe. >> we were one of the worst off, if not the second worst off. you must have long reflected since that time why that was so . why that time why that was so. why do you think that we had the rate of excess deaths in this country that we did ultimately have ? have? >> asi have? >> as i say, i think that the statistics vary , and i think statistics vary, and i think that the every country struggled with a new pandemic. that the every country struggled with a new pandemic . and i think with a new pandemic. and i think the uk, from the evidence that i

have seen , was well down the have seen, was well down the european table and obviously even further down the world table . if i had to answer why table. if i had to answer why i think we face particular headwinds, i would say it was irrespective of government action. we have a an elderly population , extremely elderly population, extremely elderly population, extremely elderly population . we do suffer sadly population. we do suffer sadly from lots of covid related co—morbidities. from lots of covid related co—morbidities . and we are co—morbidities. and we are a very densely populated country , very densely populated country, the second most densely populated country in in europe. and that that did not help . and that that did not help. >> do you accept that government actions materially contributed . actions materially contributed. to that outcome? it wasn't just a matter of the state of the health care system, density, age of population . and in fact, the of population. and in fact, the geographical location of the united kingdom. >> given that other countries

have excellent health care systems and faced similar problems and ended up in a statistically with more more excess deaths per per 100,000, the answer is i don't know. i don't know . don't know. >> you are obviously extremely well aware of the arguments that the lockdown decisions are themselves cumulative and individually. can attributed to the number of excess deaths. what do you say to that ? what do you say to that? >> i say that i don't know , but >> i say that i don't know, but i'm aware of the arguments that are made . what i would say are made. what i would say respectfully to people is that they were very, very difficult decisions and the issue of the timeliness of lockdowns was

clearly one that we consider sidered very hard . and at the sidered very hard. and at the time, at and you will have seen from the evidence that there was strong arguments against going too early into the lockdowns, especially when it came to that first series of march npis and you'll remember the arguments that were made to arguments against that early action. and they were the risk of behavioural fatigue and then the risk of bounce back or what you've called uncoiling of the spnng you've called uncoiling of the spring and they were made part and they certainly had a big effect on me . effect on me. >> could you assess the inquiry, please, with something about the nature of the, the heavy responsibility which rested on your shoulders ? it is perhaps

your shoulders? it is perhaps self evident that only the most difficult and momentous decisions come for the prime minister. that's correct . were minister. that's correct. were there any good or easy decisions to be made in this context? >> no. i can't think of a single. well i suppose it was an easy decision to say that we should go ahead with the rollout of both pfizer and astrazeneca as soon as they had been approved by the by the by the mhra . but there were no when it mhra. but there were no when it came to the forgive me, mr keith, but when it came to the balancing of the need to protect the public and protect the nhs and the damage done by lockdowns, it was incredibly difficult. >> was there please , i do >> was there please, i do understand emotions are running very high. i do. and i think it's most unfortunate when i have to ask people to leave. but

we have to ensure that this heanng we have to ensure that this hearing is effective and it's got to be effective not just for people this hearing room, but people in this hearing room, but for watching on the on for people watching on the on onune for people watching on the on online streaming. please make online streaming. so please make sure your behaviour is appropriate to a public hearing of a statutory inquiry. thank you. sorry to interrupt. that's fine . fine. >> we'll look at the nature of the particular decisions in greater detail later . the particular decisions in greater detail later. but broadly speaking, so greater detail later. but broadly speaking , so that we broadly speaking, so that we know the lay of the land and we know the lay of the land and we know how you approach these issues where the majority of the most momentous decisions, the decisions , for example, to decisions, for example, to impose the lockdowns and social distancing measures and so on, were they decisions that were in practice made by you, even if they were affirmed or endorsed by the cabinet later ? or were by the cabinet later? or were they decisions that were entirely open endedly made by cabinet at the very good

question, because i think it was it was both a huge number of decisions because they had to be taken so fast and were funnelled up directly to me . up directly to me. >> but there were also a large number of decisions . and i do number of decisions. and i do think this maybe hasn't come out as much as it should. that were the subject of exhaustive cabinet discussion in his witness statement, michael gove has said that the wider cabinet was brought into decisions at times too late and too little . times too late and too little. >> mrjavid has said in his witness statement that the cabinet was designed, in his view, to place dominic cummings and the prime minister as a decision makers to centralise power in number 10 and in his own witness statement, mr cummings has said that the cabinet was largely irrelevant to policy or execution on account of the leaks. your inability to chair it, and because it was seen by number 10 as not being a serious place for

serious discussion, i don't think that's true. >> i think there were some really excellent cabinet discussions about the trade offs . if i had to make a comment about cabinet as a whole in terms of the speed of lockdowns , terms of the speed of lockdowns, which was your what we're talking about, i think it probably would be fair to say that the cabinet was on the whole more reluctant to impose npis than necessarily than than i was. that wasn't true for every member of the cabinet, but that would be a general a general comment, the lockdown decision of . the 23rd of march decision of. the 23rd of march 2020 was debated, as you rightly say, at great length on the sunday on the monday by the various bodies, but in particular cobra. >> but it was debated in cobra on monday the 23rd. a public announcement will recall was made that day, that evening, in

fact. and then it went to cabinet on the tuesday. so in relation to the first lockdown decision, it's obvious that cabinet debated it after the eventin cabinet debated it after the event in relation to the second lockdown, that of november 2020. mr johnson, do you recall mrjohnson, do you recall whether or not that decision was made by covid ministerial committee or by cabinet? >> i i'm afraid i can't remember the sequence there, but just picking you up on the on the first the first lockdown, which was actually a sort of crescendo of measures, i'm fairly certain we had a long cabinet call at least to discuss it . least to discuss it. >> well, we'll look at that in detail later . the >> well, we'll look at that in detail later. the inquiry has heard a great deal of evidence , heard a great deal of evidence, mr johnson, about the way in which your secretaries of state would naturally and permissibly come at the same issue, whether

it ought to have a lockdown, whether to ease, whether to have a tier system and the like from from different angles . as the from different angles. as the secretary of state for health and social care, understandably , and social care, understandably, he would promote the public health consequences and the need to act in the public health. the chancellor would frequently promote the economic considerations , but all it's considerations, but all it's obvious we're aware to greater or lesser degree of the societal and economic harm that would result from the decisions that you were having to contemplate making. who you ultimately had to weigh up and determine the competing public interest considerations public health, societal harm, economic damage and so on. on whose shoulders rested that debate? >> that's the job of the prime minister. and there's only the prime minister that can can do that. but i think that that wasn't actually a bad way of

doing it to have different interests represented by different secretary of state and different secretary of state and different departments. >> presumably you needed the advice of your close advisers , a advice of your close advisers, a cabinet secretary and those in the civil service in addition to the civil service in addition to the advice that you were receiving from your secretaries of state, could you give, please the inquiry an indication as to the inquiry an indication as to the identity of the persons upon whom you were most reliant in that debate, in that weighing up exercise ? exercise? >> well, i don't i don't wish to embarrass the distinguished pubuc embarrass the distinguished public officials by by naming them . i don't know. i don't know them. i don't know. i don't know what the. well i find that civil servants on the whole are quite happy to remain an anonymous. but i can i can certainly tell you that i had superb . deputy

you that i had superb. deputy private secretary, a mathematician, an economist who's brilliant and understanding health care issues and an absolutely brilliant private for secretary health care . care. >> the inquiry is obviously heard from a number of advisers. >> you've had civil service. i think you've heard from both of those individuals. >> there's no debate about >> so there's no debate about their identity. mr johnson their identity. and mr johnson and no, no risk. >> i need to make the question a bit more specific. mr keith >> the evidence is. mrjohnson , >> the evidence is. mrjohnson, that you received advice from advisers in number 10. yes. obviously, your chief adviser. mr cummings yes. you received advice from the cabinet secretary. firstly yes. mark sedwill and then latterly simon case , you received advice from case, you received advice from the cmo and then general chief scientific advice. yes i sorry, i should have i should have cited them first. >> yes. >> yes. >> it's apparent that on top of the formal advisory structures, the formal advisory structures, the meetings with the cmo and the meetings with the cmo and the gcsa, the meetings with the

cabinet secretary, the meetings with your ministers, you had a profuse fusion of meetings with your chief adviser, mr cummings , your chief adviser, mr cummings, with your cabinet secretary, with your cabinet secretary, with your cabinet secretary, with your permanent with your principal private secretary, and so on. there were a huge number of rolling meetings with your innermost group of advisers. and i want to know to what extent, therefore you came to rely upon them in the ultimate decision making process. >> i, of course, relied on the advice i was given, but the way it works is that advisers advise and ministers decide, and that was what happened. >> you received a great deal of advice from the chief medical officer and the government's scientific chief adviser. they were a vital source of advice. that's obvious . you were aware that's obvious. you were aware that sage met hundreds of times . that sage met hundreds of times. that's to say, the scientific advisory group for emergencies. did you ever read their minutes or were you wholly reliant on

the cmo and the gcsa to relay to you what's sage had said? >> i think i think i did once or twice. look at the maybe more than that. but i looked at the what sage had actually said, and sage certainly produced a lot of documents on, but i think that the csa and the cmo did an outstanding job of leading sage and of distilling their views and of distilling their views and conveying them to me. >> the sage minutes were described as consensus minutes because they were designed to be read at speed to be able to get to the heart of the issue immediately. on reading them and to and to ensure that the advice that was being given would be readily and speedily understood . readily and speedily understood. did you ever think of calling as a general practice for those minutes so that you could yourself read them? many of them

were only 8 or 9 pages long. >> as i say, i think i did from time to time. look at the consensus minutes . i think in consensus minutes. i think in retrospect it might have been valuable to try to hear the sage conversation . unpasteurised conversation. unpasteurised itself. but i didn't. i was i was more than content with with the very clear summary that i was getting from the csa and the cmo. >> there were hundred years of consensus minutes , but you read consensus minutes, but you read only or were given only a fraction of them . fraction of them. >> that sounds right to me, yes. all right . all right. >> we'll look in detail at some of the scientific debates that engage government, particularly in the middle of march . in the middle of march. behavioural fatigue , herd behavioural fatigue, herd immunity, the debate about the reasonable worst case scenario and so on. yes did you not think of looking at the scientific

horse in the mouth and seeing what was actually being said by the government's primary scientific advisory committee on these issues ? when you as now these issues? when you as now appears to be the case, you were you became engaged particularly in the debate of behavioural fatigue. why didn't you call for the primary material? >> i think that's. the primary material? >> i think that's . a good >> i think that's. a good question. i was very, very much impressed at and by and dependent upon . the cmo and the dependent upon. the cmo and the csa , both of whom are csa, both of whom are outstanding experts in their field . and it felt to me that. field. and it felt to me that. i couldn't do better than that . couldn't do better than that. >> the cmo and the c. s, the sca were, of course, concerned with

medicine and science , and sage medicine and science, and sage was concerned, as it says on the tin with with science . tin with with science. >> cmo is a professor of public health. i mean, he, he knows he knows an awful lot about epidemiology and public behaviour in an epidemic. he does you you had no advisory structure around you. >> however . and by contrast, the >> however. and by contrast, the dean >> however. and by contrast, the dealt with matters such as the economic damage that would be done by the lockdown decisions and there was no pandemic or civil emergency or societal advisory body, which might be thought to be analogous to sage . thought to be analogous to sage. in hindsight and with the passage of time. do you suggest that there was an absence of a proper advisory structure to deal with the other issues and the other considerations which weighed in the balance when you came to make those final decisions? >> i thought about that a great

deal and i think in the end there there is such a body and it's called hm treasury . and it's called hm treasury. and thatis it's called hm treasury. and that is what they do. and you referred earlier on mr keith to the to the competing perspectives of the of the whitehall departments and the secretaries of state and i think for all its difficulties, i think it it did work well in allowing me to get a balance of the argument and the evidence appears already to suggest that that the chancellor of exchequer and then her majesty's treasury had considerable influence over the ultimate decision making process because the chancellor would come and see you in bilateral meetings . bilateral meetings. >> there were bilateral meetings in the week of the 16th of march before the first lockdown

decision in late october, before the second in the summer of 21, and then again in december of 21m relation to omicron and 21in relation to omicron and also eat out to help out . but also eat out to help out. but that advice was given to you by the chancellor and her majesty's treasury in a way that wasn't openly transparent in the way that the sage advice was provided to you. there were no minutes disclosed of the advice that you were being given to the public. there was no regular production of material or any kind of published, transparent economic analysis provided to you. do you think in hindsight that that was an error? >> i think that there was certainly transparent economic analysis of the cost of some of the measures that we were obuged the measures that we were obliged to enact and . the fall

obliged to enact and. the fall in gdp , the cost of the cures in gdp, the cost of the cures and the other schemes was was plain for to all see. that was all that was all public. of course , what was not public and course, what was not public and is not traditionally public is thatis is not traditionally public is that is ministerial conversations and discussion between ministers. but again , i between ministers. but again, i think the perspective that i was being offered by the treasury was a very useful one, just as a perspective of the department of health was a very useful one. the material. >> so that's to say diary entries and read outs of minutes and so on. mrjohnson showed that the chancellor of exchequer would , in this. that the chancellor of exchequer would , in this . difficult would, in this. difficult context of making the ultimate decisions about lockdowns and

easing and tiers. and so on, often get the last word by way often get the last word by way of a bilateral meeting that would take place just before you made a final decision. and also that the secretary of state for health and social care was occasionally excluded from meetings when public health matters were being discussed. were you aware of that? >> i think that's i don't i reject that characterisation of what took place . the overwhelm what took place. the overwhelm ing priority of the government was to protect the nhs, save lives. that was our our objective . and that was where my objective. and that was where my officials were were coming from that was what we wanted to do. and and i think it was important in that in that context to there were lots of things we had to do that were very difficult, very costly, and it was right to have endless conversations with the treasury was what we did. >> you know, of course, that a great deal of evidence had been

given to malaysia about the operation and the competence of your administration . it needs to your administration. it needs to be stated absolutely plainly that the inquiry has absolutely no interest in the in the salaciousness or the nature of mr cummings's linguistic style or the whatsapp ness. but but it does have an interest of course, in whether or not he is communications revealed an abusive and misogynistic impact at the whatsapp and the texts shed a direct light on the competence of the government. how well or not the government machinery operated , what you all machinery operated, what you all thought about each other and what some of you thought privately about the decisions that were being taken . we're that were being taken. we're going to look in detail at them

later, but it's fair to say that in the round that material paints us a appalling picture. not all the time , but at times not all the time, but at times of in competence and disarray. >> can i comment on that? i think that the two things need to be separated out there . i to be separated out there. i think it is certainly true that this inquiry has and i'm glad of it has dredged up a phenomenal quantity of the type of material that would never have been available to any previous inquiry into doings in number 10, because it's whatsapp communications of a kind that would not have been possible . would not have been possible. and that's a that's a good thing because you can get a texture of the feeling for the for the relationships and the and the human beings. i would make a couple of points. first of all, a lot of the language , the style a lot of the language, the style that you refer to is completely

unknown to me or indeed to anybody else . not on the on that anybody else. not on the on that group. i've apologised to one particular person who suffered abuse in that . in one of those abuse in that. in one of those publicised whatsapp exchanges . publicised whatsapp exchanges. but i would make a distinction between the type of language used and the decision making processes of the government and what we got done . and i would what we got done. and i would submit that any powerful and effective government has and i think of the thatcher government or the blair government has a lot of challenging and competing characters who views about each other might not be fit to print, but to get an awful lot done. and that's what we did. >> your own cabinet secretary, mark sedwill , he was, of course,

mark sedwill, he was, of course, asked to move on and we'll come to that later. in may 2020. described according to sir patrick vallance, your administration is brutal and useless and observed that it was hard to motivate people in number 10 in such terrible times if they were being shot in the back. that would appear to be a reference to the doings as you say, of number 10 to the process and the operation of government as opposed to the atmospherics. would you not agree? again >> again, i think that actually what you're looking at in in all this this stuff is a lot of highly talented and highly motivated people who are stricken with anxiety about what is happening, about the pandemic , who are doing their best and who, like all human beings , is who, like all human beings, is under great stress and great anxiety about themselves and their own performance will be

inclined to be critical of others. and i think that that would have been the same of any administration facing the same sort of challenges on that scale. but do you accept that there is a considerable body of material which which addresses not just their private thoughts of the other individuals in government, of them personally , government, of them personally, but relates to the performance of government, to the way in which your administration actually operated. >> do you accept that as a general proposition? >> i do, and i think that that was a good and a healthy thing because we needed given the scale of what we were facing, we needed constantly to challenge ourselves and constantly to try to do better . to do better. >> your own chief adviser, mr cummings, described on the 4th of may something the government had done as being the best success of whole criminally success of the whole criminally incompetent government performance. how could that be a good thing? >> because what he is trying to

do is to he's he's not for me to explain his quotation. you can ask him yourself. but what we were generally trying to do was to make sure that we delivered the best possible service for the best possible service for the people of the uk who were going through an absolutely terrible, terrible time . and it terrible, terrible time. and it would not have been right to have a if we'd had a load of whatsapp saying, aren't we doing brilliantly folks? isn't this going well ? i think your going well? i think your criticisms might have been, frankly, even more pungent . on frankly, even more pungent. on the 27th of march after mr cummings had asserted that whitehall had nearly killed huge numbers of people and cost millions of jobs and that mr hancock had failed to get on top of the testing problems. >> you yourself said these three words totally hopeless . that was words totally hopeless. that was a reference to the performance of an important part of

government . government. >> i stress the word nearly in that.in >> i stress the word nearly in that. in your response , mr that. in your response, mr johnson and i would say that my job was . not to not not job was. not to not not uncritically to accept that everything we were doing was good, though i as it happens, as i said to you, i do think that there were the country as a whole had notable achievements dunng whole had notable achievements during the crisis . my job was to during the crisis. my job was to try to get a load of quite disparate , quite challenging disparate, quite challenging characters to keep going and through a long period and to keep doing their level best to protect the country. that was my job. >> do you accept the evidence from from helen macnamara, by which you will be aware and also from former cabinet secretaries , from former cabinet secretaries, that mr cummings himself

contributed to such a toxic atmosphere that civil servants simply didn't want to work in the heart of government? helen macnamara said the relationships in number 10 and the cabinet office had a real and damaging impact. you were told directly by simon case on the 2nd of july by simon case on the 2nd of july by lots of top drawer people had refused to come to work because of the toxic reputation of your i emphasise your operation . were i emphasise your operation. were you aware that there were individual civil servants and advisers who were not prepared to work in your administration because of the atmosphere and the working relationships which were in play? >> first of all, no , i was not >> first of all, no, i was not aware of that . and secondly , i aware of that. and secondly, i didn't see any sign of that. i saw brilliantly talented people when we wanted when we advertised for a post, when we

wanted to recruit for a position in my private office, we had as far as i could see, no difficulty getting wonderful people to step forward . i think people to step forward. i think if i might make one. i think. one one self—criticism or another self—criticism. i think that the gender balance of my team should have been better. and if to your earlier question, looking back at it, when i was running london, it was great and it was 50 to 50 and it was a very harmonious team. i think sometimes as during the pandemic , too many meetings were to are male dominated, if i'm absolutely honest with you. and i think that was i tried sometimes to rectify it . i tried sometimes to rectify it. i tried to recruit a former colleague from from city hall . but i think from from city hall. but i think that was a that was something we should have done better. simon

case, who was then the permanent secretary in number 10 whatsapped, you yourself on the 2nd of july to say that lots of people, lots of top drawer people, lots of top drawer people, had refused to come because of the toxic reputation of your operation ? of your operation? >> well, i don't remember. what did you do? >> i don't remember. i don't remember that. and my impression was that the we had no difficulty recruiting the best possible people . possible people. >> could we have , please, for >> could we have, please, for 8313. page 61 on the screen . 8313. page 61 on the screen. these are communications between mr cummings and yourself in may 2020, where concerned with the bottom half of the page . bottom half of the page. >> so can you expand it? because i can't. >> yes. 7th of may hancock is unfit for this job. the incompetence, the constant lies , incompetence, the constant lies, the obsession with media

reference to testing . you must reference to testing. you must ask him where we'll get to 500,000 per day. and where is your plan for testing? and if your plan for testing? and if you can scroll back out. but just pause. just pause a second. mr johnson if you then scroll in, please to the bottom half of the page, the last part . mr the page, the last part. mr cummings says it's only be a cock up like everything else, but it will be far from the worst of our cock ups over the next eight weeks. you need to think of benny hancock and so on and so forth. you you cannot suggest that you are unaware of the opinion taken by your chief adviser over your secretary of state for health. you cannot suggest you are unaware of the concerns expressed by your cabinet secretary about the toxic reputation of your operation because he was told to you directly. you cannot suggest

that there weren't grave concerns being expressed in date , that there were people who simply would not come and work for you because of the atmosphere you were allowed to develop. >> so first of all, in in politics, there is never a time when you're not if you're prime minister you are constantly being lobbied by somebody to sack somebody else . it's just sack somebody else. it's just what i'm afraid happens and it's part of life. everybody's constantly militating against some other individual for some reason of their own. it's just it's just that i'm afraid that's the nature of it . it is the nature of it. it is perfectly true that this adviser in particular thought he had a low opinion of the health secretary he i thought he was wrong . i stuck by the health wrong. i stuck by the health secretary. i thought the health secretary. i thought the health secretary worked very hard and

whatever he may have had defects, but i thought that he was doing his best in very difficult circumstances. and i thought he was a good communicator. >> could we have 303, two, four, five? your your first and then your second cabinet secretary communicate by whatsapp. page . communicate by whatsapp. page. nine mr case refers at the top of the page to how you have told mr cummings outright to stop talking to the media in his presence. this place is just insane. zero discipline in and then the bottom half of the page. these people are so mad madly self—defeating. it's hard to ask people to march . it to ask people to march. it should be to the sound of gunfire and then the cabinet secretary, the cabinet secretary

is the head of the civil service is he or she not? i've never seen a bunch of people less well equipped to run a country that's not a matter of atmospherics or lobbying or a part of the general day in day out. friction within government is it? >> yes, i think it is. and i think that if, as >> yes, i think it is. and i think that if , as i >> yes, i think it is. and i think that if, as i say, if you'd had the views of the mandarinate about the thatcher government in unexpurgated whatsapps milady , i think you whatsapps milady, i think you would have found that they were pretty fruity. it's whatsapp conversation is intended to be, though clearly it isn't ifema all it tends to pejorative to

the pejorative and the hyperbolical and i think that . hyperbolical and i think that. the worst vice in my view , would the worst vice in my view, would have been to have had a an operation where everybody was so deferential and so reluctant to make waves that they never expressed their opinion , an they expressed their opinion, an they never challenged and they never doubted it was much more important to have a group of people who are willing to doubt themselves and to doubt each other . and i think that that was other. and i think that that was creatively useful rather than the reverse . the reverse. >> some of these senior advisers didn't just lack deference, to use your word , mr johnson. didn't just lack deference, to use your word , mrjohnson. they use your word, mr johnson. they doubted you and they doubted

your ability and your competence . as you now know from having seen the material, could we have, please, to 73 901, page 188 . 188. that's . from the 19th of that's. from the 19th of september , page 2 to 9 . there is september, page 2 to 9. there is a reference to leadership position. >> would you like me to? >> would you like me to? >> yes, i'm just going to put because it's right and proper that and fair that you're asked to give your response to some of the material which has been produced to this inquiry. and then page two, four, five,

then page two, four, five, the prime minister begins to argue for letting it all rip. they've had a good innings . and they've had a good innings. and there is a reference there to lack of leadership . the last lack of leadership. the last line this all feels like a complete lack of leadership weather. let me put the question whether or not it these significant number of advisers correctly stated the position, whether or not this was genuine, whether or not this was genuine, whether or not there were significant failings in your own and your government's competence , would you accept that? it is extraordinary that the government's chief scientific adviser, its chief adviser, its cabinet secretary, its deputy cabinet secretary, its deputy cabinet secretary, its deputy cabinet secretary should all be commenting in these terms about competence and about performance science, about you? >> i think this is wholly to be

expected and this is a period in which we are were the country is going through a resurgence of the of the virus. you're looking at the october period . and the at the october period. and the patrick the csa talks about inconsistency . and we've just inconsistency. and we've just got to face the reality i've got to face the reality is as prime minister, that . the virus seems minister, that. the virus seems to be refusing . to be suppressed to be refusing. to be suppressed by the measures we've used so far. we're going to need different measures. we've come out of lockdown . we're going out of lockdown. we're going into the tiering system . of into the tiering system. of course we're of course we're changing . but the so did the

changing. but the so did the collective understanding of the science . and if you look back at science. and if you look back at what happened during covid, we had a we had radically different views over the period over the efficacy of masks , over whether efficacy of masks, over whether a symptomatic transmission could take place. we had a totally different view within months about whether venting laters would be needed. i was told to begin with we needed 25, 25% of patients would need ventilators . patients would need ventilators. that turned out not to be true. then on particular issue , then on this particular issue, you've got you've got the scientists calling for us to go early and go hard . and this early and go hard. and this takes us back to your initial line of questioning . when line of questioning. when earlier on they had been saying expressly that if you go hard too soon, then you have two problems behavioural fatigue and

bounce back. and the problem that i was facing and it was an appalling problem in in october was that we didn't have therapeutics or we didn't have we had some therapeutics but we didn't have a vaccine . we didn't didn't have a vaccine. we didn't have a way out , didn't have a vaccine. we didn't have a way out, a medical solution. we were being forced to use npis and, and at this particular moment, i'm sure we'll come to the october, november lockdowns . my anxiety november lockdowns. my anxiety was that we were going to have to do the same thing over and over again. and i think what those notebooks reflect and what all those comments reflect is the de anxiety of a group of people doing their level best who cannot see an easy solution.

and are naturally self critical and critical of others. all right . right. >> it's obvious that these things were said at the time. you say not to you , although. you say not to you, although. >> so you've been listening to bofis >> so you've been listening to boris johnson, watching boris johnson giving evidence in the covid inquiry, the former prime minister he's going be there minister he's going to be there for a few hours yet. oh, for quite a few hours yet. oh, he's there day today and he's there all day today and tomorrow. he's already made an apology. he he's deeply apology. he says he's deeply sorry for the mistakes that were made. can i just say how glad i am to be this inquiry and how am to be at this inquiry and how sorry am for the pain and the sorry i am for the pain and the loss and the suffering? >> there was protester at the >> there was a protester at the start the inquiry. the camera start of the inquiry. the camera didn't that was, but didn't show us who that was, but baroness hallett did ask for that person to be removed. we can only presume. i presume it was somebody that lost someone to covid because there were certainly people who people like that who were basically outside of the inquiry this morning, just near paddington with with placards . placards. >> what was quite interesting, he said his cabinet was more

reluctant to lock down than he was. so that rather goes against the grain of what we were expecting to hear, that he was the reluctant one and odd, but it seems that the cabinet, he had to take that cabinet with him. that's interesting because i thought he was the one who was arguing rather heroically in my view, against the lockdown because of the huge impact it would have on the economy, mental health, schools, kids, all that stuff . all that stuff. >> we were joined in the studio by emma webb and stephen pound . by emma webb and stephen pound. >> we're going back to the inquiry going to talk to you in a bit, guys. >> sorry about this. >> sorry about this. >> sorry about this. >> so we're going back to inquiry, which is riveting. >> the system by which you receive your receive advice from your political advisers needs to be reformed . have you reflected on reformed. have you reflected on the function and powers and the extent of powers of spads or on the competence of the ministers whose advice you accepted ? whose advice you accepted? >> well, i think with hindsight, there's of things that there's all sorts of things that you do differently.

you could do differently. i think at the time i decided that it was best to have an atmosphere of challenge with some strong characters giving me advice. and i valued that advice i >> -- >> well, with hindsight , you can >> well, with hindsight, you can now see what was going on and you've had this material for some time. have you reflected on whether or not the inquiry could? if my lady sees fit, make recommendations about the way in which a character such as mr cummings, about whom some extremely strong views have been expressed , should be in the expressed, should be in the position that he was . his views position that he was. his views on whether or not the prime minister had access to the correct and proper forms of advice . are these not issues advice. are these not issues that you've thought about? >> yes, but i think overwhelming that i did have access to the correct and proper forms of advice. and if you ask upon whom i relied for that advice , it was

i relied for that advice, it was the cmo and the csa , together the cmo and the csa, together with the experts, the officials in my private office. >> you lost confidence in your cabinet secretary in may 2020, did you not? >> well, he asked to step aside. did you lose confidence in your cabinet secretary in may 2020? >> yeah . >> yeah. >> yeah. >> he asked to step aside. >> he asked to step aside. >> did you lose confidence in your chief adviser whom you described as engaging in an orgy of narcissism at the heart of your administration? >> think he also stepped aside. >> did you lose confidence in those senior advisers, mr johnson and effectively dispose of them both ? well they they of them both? well they they both stepped aside from from government, but it was a very difficult, very challenging penod. period. >> people were getting as you can see from the from the whatsapps, they were getting . whatsapps, they were getting. very frazzled because they they

were frustrated . covid kept were frustrated. covid kept coming at us in wave after wave and it was very, very hard to fight it. and people were doing their level best. and i don't, you know , when people are are you know, when people are are critical of the guy at the top or they're critical of each other, that's a reflection of the difficulty of the circumstances when the it became easier in in in the spring and after the during the vaccine rollout people's tone changed. of course it did. but it was a reflection of the of the agony that the country was going through and that the government was going through . was going through. >> ladies, at a convenient moment , i'm >> ladies, at a convenient moment, i'm about to turn to a completely separate topic, right? i shall return at 20 past i >> right. they're taking a break. they're at the covid inquiry with baroness hallett. they're just drawing proceedings

to a close. we have got stephen pound with us and emma webb . pound with us and emma webb. emma, let me come to you first with regard of where you sit on the decisions that were made and whether you are pro lockdown or more sceptical about lockdowns , more sceptical about lockdowns, this is infuriating to watch . this is infuriating to watch. >> yeah, absolutely. >> yeah, absolutely. >> it's round and round and round. it is, isn't it? and i think a lot of people are already they're already sick of covid. they're sick of boris , covid. they're sick of boris, they're sick of the constant conservative party infighting . i conservative party infighting. i think generally people have become sick of politics. i think they've been fatigued by the covid years. they've been fatigued by the impact of lockdown . and people want lockdown. and people want something positive and they want to see a government that can act, that can, you know , execute act, that can, you know, execute things as quickly and efficiently . and i think this efficiently. and i think this adds us even more to the general fatigue. >> we want people to look forward. we need to look forward, stephen. and we need

this wrapped up quickly with conclusions to be drawn and it's going drag on for years. going to drag on for years. >> new year's >> one of my new year's resolutions is to stop agreeing with emma at every with emma webb at every opportunity little opportunity because i'm a little worried that my socialist credentials are being diluted worried that my socialist credchallenged.yeing diluted worried that my socialist cred challenged.yeinglook ted worried that my socialist cred challenged.yeinglook ,3d worried that my socialist credchallenged.yeinglook , i'm and challenged. but look, i'm attracted the swedish model attracted by the swedish model on this. they did it on time, on budget in three months, and they asked question, asked themselves one question, not to blame because you not who is to blame because you cannot go back and but cannot go back and say, but what cannot go back and say, but what can prepare for the future? >> shouldn't that be the point of inquiry? of this inquiry? >> you know, and i know >> andrew you know, and i know that there's going to be an inquiry into the covid inquiry inquiry into the covid inquiry inquiry inquiry. it's going to i don't is about this don't know what it is about this country. be obsessed country. we seem to be obsessed with looking and navel with inward looking and navel gazing. can't we just say, look, it it was awful, we it was hellish, it was awful, we survived. what can we do to make sure doesn't happen sure it doesn't happen again? and got to go to chris hope. >> we'll come back to the panel. we're going chris hope in the we're going to chris hope in the in street because in downing street because there's some breaking news about there's some breaking news about the home secretary, the former home secretary, suella and suella braverman, andrew and bev, huge news in westminster as well as in paddington, where the bofis well as in paddington, where the boris johnson is giving his

evidence covid evidence to covid inquiry. >> braverman will give >> suella braverman will give a resignation after pmqs resignation statement after pmqs today in parliament. now, these statements are justifying what they why they think they left office. it's the last one was given by a sajid javid when he said enough was enough about bofis said enough was enough about boris johnson leadership in july last year. we are told on good authority it won't be so devastating about mr sunak's leadership. it will be about the issue of immigration and whether the uk should withdraw from the echr in to order ensure that the rwanda plan works. but this westminster is febrile today because they're also ministers on resignation watch about which way the government goes on this new bill disapply key new bill to disapply key elements echr and allow these elements of echr and allow these flights to take off to rwanda . flights to take off to rwanda. some ministers might resign on the left of the party if it goes too hard. and on the right, immigration minister robert jenrick out of jenrick could have run out of road tomorrow. so while road by tomorrow. so while everyone's watching the boris johnson inquiry correctly, there's a lot going on in westminster and we'll be hearing from suella braverman shortly

after statement is after pmqs. that statement is heard silence by convention. heard in silence by convention. the pm must sit there and listen to what she says because right now mps on the right of the party are desperate for the to party are desperate for the to party take a stronger approach on on rwanda and migration and controlling these small boats and there's a big concern on the right that the pm won't go far enough signs off the enough when he signs off the bill, will be published tomorrow. >> being just a day or two after james cleverly who succeeded her as home secretary , announced his as home secretary, announced his own crack five point crackdown on migration. many of those points, he announced those policies , he announced. i think policies, he announced. i think she may well be telling us this afternoon she tried to get through, but was blocked by number 10 in deed. >> and also some of those measures which were announced by james cleverly didn't go far enough for many, many sydney allies of suella braverman . and allies of suella braverman. and one mp told me this speech will be something like jeffrey howe's speech in 1990, which of course

led to the tent by michael heseltine to bring down margaret thatcher. and now no one is saying that will happen in the content of this speech. but west minster is febrile. andrew and bev today because i think for many is a real issue, an many this is a real issue, an existential maybe for mr existential issue, maybe for mr sunak get right. i'm turning sunak to get right. i'm turning off shoulder because off my shoulder because he's about to leave right now for prime minister's questions which will last one, the will happen the last one, the last one christmas. last but one before christmas. and after that sevilla braverman, who's wearing a very resplendent think braverman, who's wearing a very respmightit think braverman, who's wearing a very respmight like think braverman, who's wearing a very respmight like it think braverman, who's wearing a very respmight like it if think braverman, who's wearing a very respmight like it if he think braverman, who's wearing a very respmight like it if he sees|k braverman, who's wearing a very respmight like it if he sees it bev might like it if he sees it when she gives her statement from the backbenches in the house commons just house of commons shortly just explain she is able to explain to us how she is able to make such a statement on a day like today. >> how unusual is this ? >> how unusual is this? >> how unusual is this? >> it's very unusual. i mean, i think she's been trying to make this statement. she hasn't actually spoken bev and andrew at all in public in a broadcast way about why she was sacked by rishi sunak, i think 2 or 3 weeks ago. last monday, she gave one interview to a sunday newspaper. she'd written a comment piece, but haven't comment piece, but we haven't actually heard from her until

now. the timing is now. and the timing is absolutely crucial because right now government now the government is signing off plan. and off on this rwanda plan. and it's they go really hard it's whether they go really hard to withdraw from elements of the echr, european court's echr, the european court's jurisdiction, to make this happen, or will they dodge that and and the won't and go weaker and the plan won't work. and is why this work. and this is why this statement so, so, so well statement is so, so, so well timed in terms of the debate on rwanda and immigration and net migration and the reason why she's doing it. well, she's when you leave office in government, you leave office in government, you can give a statement to the house of commons about why you've whether you've left, whether you're sacked doesn't sacked or resigned. it doesn't matter. taken up that matter. she's taken up that option. these are very rarely granted of the granted by the speaker of the house of commons. the last one was sajid javid, who resigned was by sajid javid, who resigned in july last year and he in in july last year and he set in train events which brought train the events which brought down boris johnson. do not forget one's saying forget it. now no one's saying this as big this time, this will be as big this time, but is real concern on the but there is real concern on the right of the party that this this rwanda plan, when it comes out will be strong out tomorrow, will not be strong enough make the plan work. enough to make the plan work. and i this part of this and i think this is part of this attempt the right to attempt by the right to re—orient what mr sunak

re—orient late what mr sunak might try later today might try and do later today when signs off on the plan. when he signs off on the plan. it is very dramatic. i mean, if you weren't watching boris johnson you'd be here johnson right now, you'd be here watching word of watching every word of what happens the happens this afternoon in the commons. happens this afternoon in the conabsolutely. her letter, of >> absolutely. her letter, of course, her memorable letter excoriating is the word that people often use about that letter that she wrote. and in it, she expressed her frustration that rishi sunak never listened to her. now the beauty of this, of course, is that he will be sat there and he will have to listen to her today, won't he, chris? and all eyes will be on him for his reaction . reaction. >> there'll be two cameras. well, one camera, but everyone will be watching , won't they, mr will be watching, won't they, mr sunak sitting there having to suckit sunak sitting there having to suck it up . while behind him, suck it up. while behind him, his former home secretary he attacks the immigration plans that he's put out there , wonders that he's put out there, wonders why they can't be harder. wonder wonders why the uk can't just leave the european court of human rights jurisdiction and actually deliver on this promise to stop the boats because there is real concern from people. i understand, senior in government

that plan pmqs out that the plan to pmqs out tomorrow does not enough, tomorrow does not go far enough, i think right now there's a live debate right now that mr sunak can brought into being can be brought around into being tougher. is a part of tougher. and this is a part of the tory right in full view to persuade the prime minister to be firmer on rwanda. it is really dramatic and will be played out on the cameras on gb news all afternoon. >> like her. i can't lie. >> i like her. i can't lie. i like her style enormously . i like her style enormously. i love the way she's handled this. she wrote a piece in her own words in the paper. she's going to stand there in the house of commons and she's going to force him to listen to her whether he likes it or not. i mean, she is a thorn in his side, a massive thorn in his side, though, chris, isn't it? isn't she ? she? >> yeah, but she wouldn't she wouldn't see it that way. i do know her pretty well over the past 2 or 3 years. i mean, she's quite a kind of gently spoken person, but what she says is she fundamentally believes this. so she fundamentally believes in brexit. fundamentally brexit. she fundamentally believes need to deal believes in the need to deal with immigration, as do, in fact

, a lot of ministers who work in the home office. when you're exposed to the reality of what has been uncontrolled net migration and the issue of the small people do come small boats, people do come round and they can become pretty hard quickly. hard line pretty quickly. the frustration for those hard line pretty quickly. the erthe tion for those hard line pretty quickly. the erthe home for those hard line pretty quickly. the erthe home office for those hard line pretty quickly. the erthe home office is those hard line pretty quickly. the erthe home office is thate hard line pretty quickly. the erthe home office is that that in the home office is that that isn't shared by other parts of government because they're insulated from it. they're not seeing it every single day. and i she understands that. i think she understands that. and to her and she she absolutely to her core right wing tory. and core is a right wing tory. and that's why the base love her and that's why the base love her and that's she's threat, that's why she's such a threat, i not not a threat at i think to not not a threat at the moment to the leadership. i think after any election were the lose it and were the tories to lose it and were mr to stand should mr sunak to stand aside should be to take over. be a favourite to take over. >> i wonder if he has any regrets about sacking her from this ? this position? >> there >> probably not. there a relationship had broken down completely, but she's in it. >> but she's in a place now where she can cause him nothing but headaches. yeah, absolutely. because that because she knows that department anyone department better than anyone else. right else. his achilles heel right now is immigration mean. she just keeps kicking him in it over and over again. and she has great credibility when she does

so can't help feel maybe so you can't help but feel maybe he have handled this he should have handled this differently and somehow kept her close. punching the bruise, >> she's punching the bruise, isn't she? >> yes. stephen pound is here. we're going to the camera we're going to keep the camera on we do on you, chris, because we do want see rishi sunak leaving want to see rishi sunak leaving downing but downing street. but we expression been looking for expression i've been looking for we voice of stephen pound. >> stephen you and i were >> stephen pound, you and i were almost certainly in the commons chamber when geoffrey howe made that resignation. chamber when geoffrey howe made that interesting,|ation. chamber when geoffrey howe made that interesting, the n. >> isn't it interesting, the personal assistant that chris chris made there about chris hope just made there about her of quietly her being sort of quietly spoken? we said same thing her being sort of quietly spoke|geoffrey d same thing her being sort of quietly spoke|geoffrey howe. ;ame thing her being sort of quietly spoke|geoffrey howe. yeah thing about geoffrey howe. yeah i knew. mean, served in the knew. i mean, i served in the house with the dead sheep. fernandez as she was then. yeah, she quietly spoken when she was very quietly spoken when geoffrey came up geoffrey howe came, he came up with he said, it's with this line. he said, it's like batsman to the like the batsman going to the crease to find the captain's broken your bat. yeah. then broken your bat. yeah. and then we lawson thing about in we had the lawson thing about in power, office. but not in power, but in office. but not in power. was, that was, that was. >> no that was norman lamont norman. >> i your pardon. how could >> i beg your pardon. how could i confuse two right wing chancellors. yeah yeah. but chancellors. yes. yeah yeah. but look, is it very look, the reality is it very often ones, the often it's the quiet ones, the silent that do the silent assassins that do the most damage. but look, know

most damage. but look, i know i was the whips office when was in the whips office when these used happen. these things used to happen. this they will be this moment, they will be running like headless running around like headless chickens, pack the chickens, trying to pack the chamber because they chamber because what they are terrified firstly, that terrified of firstly, is that suella heard in suella braverman is heard in silence. that suella braverman is heard in silen(is that suella braverman is heard in silen(is no that suella braverman is heard in silen(is no one that suella braverman is heard in silen(is no one actually hat there is no one actually supporting prime minister supporting the prime minister on the he will be the front bench. he will be forcing people in there. but the other thing they'll see who's donating going to donating her, who's going to be sitting because this is sitting around because this is the people will be running the people who will be running her campaign. well, her leadership campaign. well, you the runes. you know, read the runes. absolutely. pretty sure absolutely. i'm pretty sure that's what's going to be happening. an happening. it puts labour in an odd because, you know, odd position because, you know, we're to to sit we're just going to have to sit back and just watch this happen. >> well, you've been doing that for you haven't been doing for ages. you haven't been doing anything, working. for ages. you haven't been doing anythinyhad working. for ages. you haven't been doing anythinyhad 13 working. for ages. you haven't been doing anythinyhad 13 years working. for ages. you haven't been doing anythinyhad 13 years of working. for ages. you haven't been doing anythinyhad 13 years of thating. for ages. you haven't been doing anythinyhad 13 years of that of. >> i've had 13 years of that of nothing by nothing. nothing by doing nothing. >> inaction . yes. >> is that what what do you think, emma? >> it's very exciting, >> oh, it's all very exciting, isn't it? i agree with bev. i love suella. i think that we need people like her in the conservative party because i mean, appointing david mean, rishi appointing david cameron awry cameron shows just how awry things to groundhog things have gone to groundhog day i'm excited to hear day. i'm very excited to hear and actually impatient to hear

what she's going to say. and as stephen was saying, to see who's sitting around her, because that's going to be it's that's going to be very it's there many things there aren't very many things that can be used at the moment in this sort of chaotic situation to read the signs of the times, to have a sense of how things might unfold as things go forward towards the german election, then potentially afterwards. and this will be a really good opportunity just looking at the constellation people constellation of people physically around suella to get a sense of how things might play out. >> it'll also be interesting to see which cabinet ministers are on front bench because on the front bench because sometimes reasons sometimes they can find reasons not in the of not to be in the house of comments questions and i can comments or questions and i can imagine 1 or 2 of them may be i can think of at least one chancellor of the exchequer who will certainly somewhere else. >> yeah, exactly where suella braverman from. normally braverman speaks from. normally you've sits on you've got theresa may sits on the corner, which the right on that corner, which she's made her seat. and then you've fabricant. you've got michael fabricant. she's just on the left at the moment. i think people will moment. i think her people will be that that doughnut moment. i think her people will be who that that doughnut moment. i think her people will be who those hat that doughnut moment. i think her people will be who those people: doughnut moment. i think her people will be who those people are ughnut moment. i think her people will be who those people are would and who those people are would definitely next her. definitely be next to her. >> he's called sirjohn

>> he's a man called sirjohn hayes. you know john hayes. yes, i know john hayes. he used to run a group the run a group called the cornerstone can you cornerstone group. can you believe group called believe there's a group called that? her we used to call that? he is her we used to call it gravestone group. i know it the gravestone group. i know you did. the he is her you did. he is the he is her chief lieutenant, and he's on the backbenches. he will be the backbenches. and he will be running leadership campaign running her leadership campaign because she definitely run running her leadership campaign beca year. 1e definitely run next year. >> she? sure. >> will she? oh, for sure. >> will she? oh, for sure. >> she wait until after the >> she will wait until after the election. yeah. >> tories will lose >> which the tories will lose because looking pretty because it's looking pretty bleak the moment. very bleak. bleak at the moment. very bleak. and still now of the view and i'm still now of the view more that it will be more than ever that it will be a election by no later than may or june. >> i don't think you can overstate how important and how valuable what's going valuable all what's going to happen afternoon i find happen this afternoon is. i find it frustrating that it quite frustrating that this covid taking place covid inquiry is taking place this morning because what's happening westminster right happening in westminster right now because this now is so important because this is issue that is going is the key issue that is going to the key issues is to one of the key issues is going to decide the next election. sure. but it's also one of most important issues one of the most important issues to the british public. so the important sense of what is said, how this goes and the surrounding context is a pivotal

moment going forward . i don't moment going forward. i don't think the importance can be overstated, will define the fissures within the conservative party. >> i mean, i have to say, we used to be europe will be used to be europe long, long covid. it's long covid inquiry that i'm doing at the moment. to be honest. >> and we're all suffering from it. >> i know europe was the issue. it was. and in many ways it's actually factors in again, because it's the european court, which course part of which of course isn't part of the union. the european union. >> we're going go back the >> we're going to go back to the covid know you're covid inquiry. i know you're excited back to hear excited to get back to hear bofis excited to get back to hear boris johnson. you're boris johnson. if you're listening radio listening on the radio and watching on tv because he's back being grilled or should we say lightly lawyer lightly flambeed by the lawyer against this around about the 7th january, you say he rang 7th of january, you say he rang you the of january you again on the 22nd of january to put this in its chronological, proper chronological, proper chronological place . chronological place. >> the first stage had taken place on the 22nd of january, the first, cobra on the 24th of january. he says . however, in january. he says. however, in his witness statement that he called you directly on at least four occasions during january to

try and impress upon you his concerns , although he does not concerns, although he does not say so. the implication is that he was at pains to try to alert you to the problem as he saw it, and he was required to raise the matter with you repeatedly. do you recall a repeated number of attempts to raise the alarm with you in that way? >> i certainly recall the conversation . on the 7th of conversation. on the 7th of january and the context . and i january and the context. and i remember thinking about it and saying to him, well, you know, keep an eye on it. and i set out in my in my statement that my initial instinct, in my in my statement that my initial instinct , that's about initial instinct, that's about it . i don't, to be frank, it. i don't, to be frank, remember all those conversations . but it's true that we would have spoken on many occasions because we generally spoke quite a quite a lot . because we generally spoke quite a quite a lot. i think because we generally spoke quite a quite a lot . i think that

because we generally spoke quite a quite a lot. i think that. in that period, jan , january really that period, jan, january really to the to the end of february , to the to the end of february, towards the end of february , towards the end of february, covid was pretty much like a cloud on the horizon, no bigger than a man's hand. and you didn't know whether it was going to turn into a typhoon or not. and i certainly didn't. i was unsure and it became clear much later the matter was first raised with your cabinet secretary, mark sedwill, formally on the 21st of january, which was the date, in fact, of the world health organisation. >> first novel coronavirus situation report. do you recall when the matter was first brought officially to your attention? you were obviously aware from news reports and you'd been aware from your conversations with mr hancock as to the possible crisis or the emergence of this virus in china. but when officially do you recall it was put before you

? i i'm sure it's in my in what i've submitted to the inquiry. >> mr keith. i think certainly there are cabinet discussions in in january and in and in february . and a crescendo of february. and a crescendo of activity about it . but in activity about it. but in government it wasn't yet being escalated to me as something of really truly national concern. >> indeed , a cobra was convened >> indeed, a cobra was convened chaired by mr hancock on the 24th of january, and then he chaired a further cobra meeting on the 29th of january. then the 5th of february, then the 18th of february, and then the 26th of february, and then the 26th of february. it's plain that was quite permissible . the cobra quite permissible. the cobra doesn't have to be chaired by prime minister. indeed, it can be chaired by an official. but the sheer frequency of those cobras, there were then five

cobras, there were then five cobras within one month, all on the same issue of this emerging virus. this didn't the seriousness of the position in late january make itself plain to you? how could they have been a need for a cobra every week for five weeks in relation to an issue that didn't require your direct involvement as the prime minister? i think for the reason you've given , which is that you've given, which is that a cobra is a regular occurrence in government when there's something that a particular government department is leading on. >> in this case, it was as health the possibility of a coronavirus pandemic, which was only declare by by the who. on the 12th of march was was not something that had yet been hadnt something that had yet been hadn't really broken upon the political world. certainly in my

conscious ness as something of a real potential, you know, a real potential national disaster. did you and in that period, end of january, beginning of february, it's the end of january. beginning february. it's not much in the political world. i wasn't asked about it. for instance, at all at pmqs. >> were you even aware that mr hancock was chairing cobra to deal with a new and emerging respiratory virus on those five dates? >> i think that i was aware that matt was handling it. i couldn't swear that i was aware that he was handling it in that way. swear that i was aware that he was handling it in that way . on was handling it in that way. on all those particular dates . my all those particular dates. my instructions to him were to keep me posted and i would do whatever i could. but by the by the end of the month, clear by the end of the month, clear by the end of february, i'm getting anxious about what we're doing . anxious about what we're doing. we'll come there. >> did you or do you recall having any debate with your

advisers as to whether or not you should be chairing those cobras or whether or not the seriousness of the position required you to chair the cobra at the end of january and throughout february? >> yes, i think i think there is a an exchange . i remember a an exchange. i remember talking to my private office and saying, you know, this is clearly becoming an issue of national 24th february. thank you . you. >> before that date for the month beforehand, did you think to say to your officials , the to say to your officials, the secretary of state for health is chairing a cobra now on a weekly bafis chairing a cobra now on a weekly basis to do with a fatal viral pandemic, which currently is just spreading, hasn't yet been declared as a pandemic. it hadnt declared as a pandemic. it hadn't been declared as a pandemic, but by the 16th of january, it had spread to thailand and japan . the thailand and japan. the scientists in the united kingdom had reported on the 12% hospitalisation rate . it was hospitalisation rate. it was clear from the material in government that only a small

fraction of the infections in wuhan were being detected and there was already evidence of limited human to human transmission, all by the 16th of january. so in an overarching sense, we why do you think that the prime minister yourself was not informed earlier as to those extremely worrying features of this emerging virus? i think the here's what i really think happened. >> i think that actually we everybody had they stopped to think about it could see the implications of the data, the implications of the data, the implications of the data, the implications of what was happening in the numbers, the percentage of fatalities in in china . but i don't think that china. but i don't think that they necessarily drew the right conclusions in that early phase. and which is no fault of theirs.

i think this what happened was some thing that was completely outside people's living memory. what we were dealing with is like a once in a century event. and i just don't think people could compute it. the implication of that data and it wasn't really escalated . it wasn't really escalated. it wasn't really escalated. it wasn't escalated to me as an issue of national concern until much later. and as you say, i said, look, i think i've got a i've got a chair these cobras , i've got a chair these cobras, you were the prime minister >> you're obviously an extremely . skilled politician. and you have direct, intimate experience of running government from the viewpoint of the bereaved and those who were terribly damaged and harmed by this pandemic. how

could a government have generally failed to stop and think the system is there to make you think the risk assessment processes and civil emergency procedures are there to make sure that you don't have to make sure that you don't have to stop and think? it responds . to stop and think? it responds. but on this occasion generally, andifs but on this occasion generally, and it's not a personal point, generally the system did not stop and think and say this data shows there is a greater problem than we currently understand . than we currently understand. >> i think that's look, i think i've tried in a way to give you the answer to that. i think that what what really happened was outside our living experience , outside our living experience, we hadn't seen something like this for a century or more. and what but what unfortunately, what but what unfortunately, what we did remember was not helpful because what we did remember what the system did remember what the system did remember was things like sars and mers and swine flu and so

on. others zoonotic diseases that certainly had an impact in in asia, which is what we were seeing. but ultimately were relatively easy, if not wholly benign in the uk. and if i had to guess an answer to your to your question, mr keith, i would say that that was probably the default mindset. and you know, and that was basically because of people were operating on the bafis of people were operating on the basis of their lived experience . basis of their lived experience. >> so a failed mindset. >> so a failed mindset. >> i think it was a, a human natural response of, of people base based on what they had themselves seen. and observed in their lifetimes. but from the context , from from the prism or context, from from the prism or from the viewpoint of the efficacy and the competence of

the government response , as the government response, as regardless of the psychological issues that may have been preying on the minds of its constituent individual parts , constituent individual parts, the government failed to wake up, did it not? >> it failed to understand the significance of the crisis and therefore it must follow . failed therefore it must follow. failed to take steps speedily enough . to take steps speedily enough. >> i think that it would certainly be fair to say, of the of me , the entire whitehall of me, the entire whitehall establishment , the scientific establishment, the scientific community included our advisers included that . we underestimated included that. we underestimated the scale and the pace of the of the scale and the pace of the of the challenge and you can see that very clearly early in those early days in in march from late february through to the sequence of npis of lockdowns , you can

of npis of lockdowns, you can see that we were all in failure. we were all collectively we underestimating how fast it had already spread in the uk. we underestimated we put the peak to too late. the first peak too late. we thought it would be in may, june. that was totally wrong . i don't blame the wrong. i don't blame the scientists for that at all. but that was that was the that was the feeling and it just turned out to be wrong . out to be wrong. >> but the evidence before milady shows that the scientists , at least in part, were were aware by the end of january of the hospitalisation rate of the fact that the number of infections was grossly being was being grossly underestimated, that there was is self—sustaining human to human transmission. they were aware by the beginning of february that there was no effective test

trace control, isolate system in the united kingdom. so once the virus spread beyond china and became self—sustaining, there was no effective means of stopping its entry into the united kingdom. that was all known to the scientists , at known to the scientists, at least by the beginning of february. why wasn't it known to the. >> well, on the test, trace the ministers on the test trace and isolate on the whole diagnostics question. i think if you if you look at the evidence, you can see actually that we were being assured, i was being assured that we were in a good place on that we were in a good place on that until it became clear that that until it became clear that that wasn't quite right . so but that wasn't quite right. so but i'm asking you about the forgive me, i'm asking you about the system. >> if the science is new and had the data from which the government could draw the proper conclusions, why didn't the government systemically . government systemically. i think, rise up in light of these alarm bells and do something i don't wish to say that we were

oblivious because we weren't at and actually a lot of work went on, a lot of a lot of planning, a huge amount of discussion. >> so i think i'm talking quite a lot now to , i think the cmo a lot now to, i think the cmo first briefed me about it on about the fourth of february , about the fourth of february, and we talk about what could happen. sage as you say, is meeting . it's not as though meeting. it's not as though nothing is happening. no i think that what is what is what is going wrong possibly, is that we are just underestimating the pace , the contagiousness of the pace, the contagiousness of the of the disease . and you know, of the disease. and you know, you can see very clearly from from the that that crucial moment of transition from the 12th to the 13th of march , how

12th to the 13th of march, how radically the scientific appreciation of the situation changed because on one day was forgive me, i'm sorry, i'm asking you about january and february. >> we haven't got to march yet . >> we haven't got to march yet. when did you first become aware that the test and trace system , that the test and trace system, whilst extremely efficient in practice, could not be extended beyond the first few hundred cases that it was a system designed for. high high consequence infectious diseases, it dealt with travellers, it deau it dealt with travellers, it dealt with index cases, but it couldn't really be expanded beyond . 10 or 20 index cases and beyond. 10 or 20 index cases and 5 or 600 contacts. yes you're going to have to forgive me. >> i can't remember exactly when i it became obvious that test and trace wasn't going to work. but but there came a point quite early on when i think chris or patrick said, look, you know,

test and trace isn't relevant anymore because of the spread of the disease from which you then i couldn't date that from which you then of course appreciated that if the virus spread outside china and was self—sustaining and it had already, of course, i'm sorry, that was probably much later in march or you think that was later in march? i think so. i couldn't i couldn't. so. but i couldn't i couldn't. i couldn't. i couldn't swear to it. >> there was a box note on the 30th of january, 136734 . this is 30th of january, 136734. this is an email from from a member of your office, mr johnson an email from from a member of your office, mrjohnson . in two your office, mr johnson. in two to post the private office support team . grateful if you support team. grateful if you could include the below in the box tonight, prime minister to be aware the chinese government granted the permission for the flight to evacuate british nationals from wuhan. so we're concerned here with repatched situation . if we then go over situation. if we then go over the page , there's a reference to the page, there's a reference to the page, there's a reference to the w.h.o. the page, there's a reference to the who. expected declare a pubuc

the who. expected declare a public health emergency of international concern and then also to be aware, the fco is drawing down non—official staff across the network in china . the across the network in china. the day before , on the 29th of day before, on the 29th of january, there was a cobra five, 6226. you weren't , of course, at 6226. you weren't, of course, at that cobra. mr johnson, you've explained how you didn't chair a cobra until march. if we look at page five, we will . see that the page five, we will. see that the chair. mr hancock , hears from chair. mr hancock, hears from the cmo and public health england about the fatalities in china. there was evidence of human to human transmission and germany had four confirmed cases . and then at paragraph three, the cmo said the uk planning assumption were based on a reasonable worst case scenario . reasonable worst case scenario. there were two scenarios to be considered, and the first was that the spread was confined within china. the second was

that spread was not limited that the spread was not limited to china and there would be a pandemic like scenario within the impacted the second the uk impacted the second scenario was plausible, but it may take weeks to months. the cmo sets out there in cobra and melody has heard evidence on this that it was understood that if the second scenario came to pass, there would be a pandemic. because once control had been lost, a viral wave was inevitable. yes this is a cobra that takes place on that day. the 29th of january. the following day, you receive a box note which appears to be solely concerned with repatriation . on concerned with repatriation. on the question is why were you, the question is why were you, the prime minister, not being told directly? this is a virus which, if it escapes china, will will result in a pandemic. there is information already that it has a very serious fatality rate and a very serious hospitalisation rate. why was that basic light bulb informed

motion not brought to your attention so that you could see the true nature of this emerging crisis? i think that i cannot give you the exact reason why why that was the that cobra was not brought to my attention that that detail of the cobra was not brought to my attention. >> but i can i can say that at that stage , i think that even that stage, i think that even the concept of a pandemic did not necessarily primarily imply to the whitehall mind and the kind of utter disaster that covid was to become . and if i if covid was to become. and if i if i if i if i may, that may sound odd, but what i'm trying to say is that i think people were still operating in the in the they were still thinking about things like a flu, an influenza pandemic or some of the other diseases that i've mentioned . diseases that i've mentioned. >> well, this material along

with a plethora of other documents, shows that the reasonable worst case scenario was already being envisaged , and was already being envisaged, and that was a reasonable worst case scenario, which denoted deaths to the tune of 800,000 people. so it couldn't have been unknown to whitehall . but you say the to whitehall. but you say the eventuality was not aware it . eventuality was not aware it. >> i didn't see that figure and l, >> i didn't see that figure and i, i saw a different figure. i think two towards the end of, of february , by which time our our february, by which time our our our alarm was really, really , our alarm was really, really, truly raised . but our alarm was really, really, truly raised. but i'm trying to give you my best explanation for, for why people were in the mindset that they were in. >> there was a cabinet on the sist >> there was a cabinet on the 31st of january 56125. if we go to page ten, please, we can see the nature of the debate . it the nature of the debate. it was, of course, chaired by by you that afternoon . and the

you that afternoon. and the secretary of state for health and social care. mr hancock says two cases have been confirmed in the united kingdom. there had been of course confirmed on the 30th and 31st of january. it was a very serious problem in china , a very serious problem in china, a very serious problem in china, a large number of cases and fatalities and then the debate moves on to the typical infection rate of two and a half to three people. and the mortality rate 2. yes so if the reproduction in value is two and a half to three, that is to say one person will infect 2 to 2 and a half to three people in an unimmunised population. and the mortality rate 2% of people who were infected or perhaps confirmed cases is not clear , confirmed cases is not clear, means a very, very large number of people will die . correct of people will die. correct >> that's right . >> that's right. >> that's right. >> the debate in cabinet page

ten and 11 deals with repatriate asian . the department for asian. the department for international development examines developing countries where the risk of spread of the disease was high spread of the disease was high spread of the disease globally would be a big problem for those countries and could also mean further evacuation of british nationals. so the debate focuses almost exclusive around the position abroad of the repatriation issue and despite the reference to the mortality rate, the reproduction figure and the knowledge which was already in the possession of government , that there was government, that there was confirmed cases outside china with sustain human to human transmission , nobody stopped to transmission, nobody stopped to say this means inevitably a huge number of deaths. a wall of death and this country , if it death and this country, if it escapes china being overrun by

the virus. >> yes , i think the word >> yes, i think the word inevitably there is the one that i would pick up on, because i think if you look at what the what the secretary of state for health told the cabinet, he said if the chinese, chinese grip it, then it won't be a problem. but if china don't grip it, then that that could be very serious . that that could be very serious. but your point is still basically a good one, which is that we have to think about what happened if china didn't grip it. and i think we just have to know , you know, put our hands up know, you know, put our hands up here and say, look, i think because of the absence of collective memory , because we collective memory, because we were operating under a different set of assumptions , i don't set of assumptions, i don't think that we were able to comprehend and the implications of what we were actually looking

at and i think that all sorry, let me put it a different way. i think if we as i said right at the beginning , if we had the beginning, if we had collectively stopped to think about what the mathematical implications of some of the forecasts that were being made and we believed them , we might and we believed them, we might have operated different , we the have operated different, we the problem was that i don't think we attached enough credence to those forecasts. and because of the experience that we'd had with other zoonotic diseases, i think collectively in in in whitehall , there was not a whitehall, there was not a sufficient out loud enough klaxon of alarm. i don't blame people. i just think it was because of the experience that

they'd had all their lives. >> the material mrjohnson shows how at various stages you warned against overreaction . you made against overreaction. you made the point that sars and mers had not turned out to be as serious for the united kingdom as some had feared at the time. bse had not resulted in the levels of deaths which some had forecast. so may we take it that you put yourself in that category of people? >> i was i was asked credence, i was agnostic . >> i was i was asked credence, i was agnostic. i i thought that the mixture just have made it an executive decision. >> this is a car crash. >>— >> this is a car crash. >> but you never does. >> but you never does. >> so this is of course, boris johnson at the covid inquiry , johnson at the covid inquiry, still talking in my opinion, a little bit too much about who said what. he's doing a pretty good job, i would say, of kind of getting getting the head, getting the lead on on hugo, keith, kc stephen, what do you make of his performance? he's

very calm. >> well , no, i have to say, >> well, no, i have to say, people are expecting him to explode and start losing his temper. >> it's not throwing his arms about, but no, he's been very calm, very measured. but at the end of the day, is the nation better off because of spending millions pounds having, millions of pounds and having, you the premier news you know, the premier news channel much time to channel devoting so much time to this thing i should imagine channel devoting so much time to this tpeople i should imagine channel devoting so much time to this tpeople knowhould imagine channel devoting so much time to this tpeople know thatd imagine channel devoting so much time to this tpeople know that there'sne most people know that there's not be outcome . not going to be an outcome. nobody's going come back from nobody's going to come back from the the families of those the dead. the families of those people suffered the agonies people who suffered the agonies dunng people who suffered the agonies during not be during covid are not going to be satisfied. they're not going to be i think be reassured. i'm sorry. i think it's time. and it's a waste of time. and i think in answer to your question, yes, boris played a good bat on this. but, good straight bat on this. but, you can we just move on you know, can we just move on and stumps, please? you know, can we just move on ancwell,stumps, please? you know, can we just move on ancwell, we'ves, please? you know, can we just move on ancwell, we've got ease? you know, can we just move on ancwell, we've got another day >> well, we've got another day and a half of this, steve, so maybe he will pressured into maybe he will be pressured into saying something, perhaps otherwise but of otherwise wouldn't say. but of course, prepared course, i mean, he's prepared for this. i mean, for hours for this. i mean, i was reading the other day that he's locked with his he's been locked away with his lawyers for the best part of last. >> and we're paying for those lawyers, the way, we were lawyers, by the way, we were saying i think should because saying i think we should because he's responding in role

he's he's responding in his role as prime minister. he's he's responding in his role as ii'ime minister. he's he's responding in his role as ii think'iinister. he's he's responding in his role as ii think we ;ter. he's he's responding in his role as ii think we should be paying >> i think we should be paying for that. but i don't think we should paying for £200 should be paying for £200 million public inquiry. should be paying for £200 miligoing public inquiry. should be paying for £200 miligoing to public inquiry. should be paying for £200 miligoing to go blic inquiry. should be paying for £200 miligoing to go for inquiry. should be paying for £200 miligoing to go for on quiry. should be paying for £200 miligoing to go for on three years. >> i mean, in terms of explaining the amount of money that's well, the that's been spent as well, the amount work that must have amount of work that must have gone into collating all of these texts, kind of texts, messages and that kind of thing, that they must thing, the amount that they must have through in order to have gone through in order to prepare for this. he's he's doing, you know, what is advisable, honestly, advisable, answering honestly, it fair. minimum it seems fair. minimum clear answers lot it must answers is there's a lot it must have i mean it very, very have been i mean it very, very intense for him to prepare for this. but like stephen has said, you this is going you know, i think this is going to drag for a very long time. to drag on for a very long time. it's not going undo the it's not going to undo the generation children that are generation of children that are to be to read or not going to be able to read or do maths or will further do maths or will suffer further down the line as a result of this. and also, i think by the time get the end of it, time we get to the end of it, people will be so fatigued that it be memory hold. it will just be memory hold. >> be talking to arlene >> we'll be talking to arlene foster. of course was first foster. of course he was first minister in northern ireland. she was talking about the pressure. when she pressure. she was under when she took decisions to close down took the decisions to close down schools. i mean, there'sjust

schools. i mean, there's just this that's been this report that's been published. they saying the progresshas gone back, and schools has gone back, and that's of covid, because that's because of covid, because of the lockdown. that's because of covid, because of tyeah,:kdown. that's because of covid, because of tyeah, idown. that's because of covid, because of tyeah, i was]. that's because of covid, because of tyeah, i was i was actually on >> yeah, i was i was actually on this very channel last night on headune this very channel last night on headline were talking headline as they were talking about yeah and about this issue. yeah and particularly, know, particularly, you know, those those a at who those kids who are at a at who dunng those kids who are at a at who during covid were at that important when your important moment when in your schooling things schooling where where things really sink that really start to sink in that we're going know the we're not going to know the consequences of that until much, much further down the line, until which they until the point at which they are, about to go to are, you know, about to go to university. that of thing. university. that kind of thing. so a lost so it's almost a lost generation, it? generation, isn't it? >> yeah. >> it is, yeah. >> it is, yeah. >> really is. >> it really is. >> it really is. >> imagine those people when they're applying for jobs they're going applying forjobs in people in ten, 12 years time, people they're are not going to they're marks are not going to be good and they're not going be as good and they're not going to be as well rounded as to be as well rounded and as well educated anyone in well educated as anyone in education tell you. education would tell you. >> they've lost it forever. they have. because if they weren't in school two years, six school for two years, that's six months at least. they've lost. >> gaps in >> yeah, but the gaps in knowledge are huge. right. i want to pmqs guys. want to move on to pmqs guys. we've got pmqs going to be we've got pmqs are going to be on just about five minutes or on in just about five minutes or so. going to be a so. emma it's going to be a goodie with braverman

goodie with suella braverman ready sunak to ready to throw rishi sunak to the about immigration. the wolves about immigration. >> i can't wait. i'm going to do a and i'm going to a tom harwood and i'm going to get watch it get my popcorn out and watch it with interest. he's got with great interest. he's got his popcorn. >> shares it with us. >> he never shares it with us. do you notice? no i did. >> never shows two bowls. >> no, he never shows two bowls. >> no, he never shows two bowls. >> either. he >> dodgers either. well, he knows to quite knows it's going to be quite a blockbuster for the super bowl, but pmqs will be because the prime going be prime minister's going to be under immigration, under pressure on immigration, on party, on the splits in the tory party, potentially on the splits in the tory party, pot< rwanda and of course, the rwanda plan. and of course, suella, who's going i suella, who's going to speak. i mean, will be on. >> well, this could be the opening salvo in really the end game, the final war. this really could game, the final war. this really couit's it's the canary in >> it's the it's the canary in the coal mine, the litmus test or whatever analogy you or whatever other analogy you want tell for the future of >> i can tell for the future of the conservative party. >> this is really very important. >> had a glimpse the >> we just had a glimpse in the chamber. no of chamber. there's no sign of either the prime minister or suella yet. she suella braverman yet. so is she going to make a very melodramatic even dramatic melodramatic or even dramatic entrance? this is question. >> upstage him? yes, >> will she upstage him? yes, because happen is he because what could happen is he could come in. you know, and could come in. you you know, and i know that the prime minister could come in. you you know, and i know tlike:he prime minister could come in. you you know, and i know tlike two ’rime minister could come in. you you know, and i know tlike two minutes1ister could come in. you you know, and i know tlike two minutes before appears like two minutes before behind he pauses by behind the speaker. he pauses by the chair. he table

the speaker's chair. he table everybody to the whips to orchestra at the applause. what happens comes in at happens if suella comes in at the she's got the same time and she's got a seat reserved right behind him? >> this is posturing for leadership as well. how prime ministerial when she delivers? >> well, she's wearing a red dress, apparently. what does that signify, mary? dress, apparently. what does tha queen y, mary? dress, apparently. what does tha queen ofviary? dress, apparently. what does tha queen of scots wore a red >> queen of scots wore a red dress execution. it was dress in her execution. it was it the symbol of the martyr. it was the symbol of the martyr. it was. >> don't you think i'm suddenly feeling quite self—conscious that here my red dress? that here in my very red dress? no, that's maroon. that's my. >> at the moment it is welsh questions, isn't always questions, which isn't always unless most unless you're in wales the most thrilling question time. >> got 20 mile an >> but they've got 20 mile an hour speed limits in wales and sort an hour speed sort of three mile an hour speed limits when it comes to welsh debate. i yet can debate. i have yet and can we just people they've just remind people why they've got hour speed got a 20 mile an hour speed limit in wales? >> steve because got stupid welsh labour government wales. >> covid ea covm gm" >> it's a covid inquiry is still on. and they've also got very bad >> and they've also got very bad nhs figures and very bad education. >> well they do suffer labour government historical overhang you know, from a post—industrial society because i mean you don't forget, know, the steelworks forget, you know, the steelworks , the pits, people are only just

recovering. we've give recovering. we've got to give them at another century to recover. >> stephen you've been running wales since devolution. that's a very not actually, very long time. not actually, no, no. no, no, no. >> there's a four year period when didn't write so well . when we didn't write so well. >> so we are going to be going over to the house of commons. you're hanging now. you're hanging any minute now. >> home >> we're just hanging on home secretary. not interested in >> you're not interested in prime minister's are prime minister's questions, are you, today? not at all. you, today? no, not at all. >> just waiting for the >> i'm just waiting for the statement braverman. statement from suella braverman. i going fascinating. >> she doesn't normally disappoint, does she, stephen? >> she doesn't normally dis'well,|t, does she, stephen? >> she doesn't normally dis'well,|t,don't she, stephen? >> she doesn't normally dis'well,|t,don't knowstephen? >> she doesn't normally dis'well,|t,don't know whether >> well, i don't know whether she's great deal form she's got a great deal of form on this. >> i mean, the key thing here is normally under normally she's quite under stated. actually stated. i mean, she's actually preserves her bile preserves her vile and her bile and as as and this excoriate as as beverley rightly said beverley said rightly said earlier on for written word earlier on for the written word you she's not normally you know she's not normally known be a demosthenes she's known to be a demosthenes she's on benches she doesn't on the green benches she doesn't normally boomer but think normally boomer but i think she'll speak quietly but it'll be sorrow than in anger. be more in sorrow than in anger. i think be her line i think that will be her line and think a lot people will and i think a lot of people will be looking quite ashamed as they're sitting around and there'll be, i think, a movement towards physical movement towards a physical movement towards a physical movement towards that in the chamber and that be very interesting that will be very interesting to get facial expression

get some facial expression analysts to look at the body language . language. >> i don't think you'll have to be an expert to work it out this afternoon. >> i wonder if badenoch >> i wonder if kemi badenoch will be on the front bench today. >> she's well, 100% guaranteed because , is, in because she, of course, is, in my view, most potentially my view, a most potentially a much serious contender to much more serious contender to be the next tory leader. yeah. >> i mean, i think she's got a bigger reach out in the country because suella does have because suella still does have that reputation but think that reputation of. but i think kemi someone kemi badenoch is, is someone who's intellect. who's got the intellect. she's got the appeal she's got got the appeal and she's got the charisma i think charisma or the rise. i think you people it . you young people call it. >> let's say hello to tom and emily, they they're emily, since they are, they're waiting. that waiting. he's got all that popcorn, emily with popcorn, tom and emily with their popcorn. bev and their popcorn. well, bev and andrew, keep mentioning all andrew, you keep mentioning all this two bowls today >> i've got two bowls today because thought have because i thought we'd have two big borisjohnson because i thought we'd have two big boris johnson and big events. boris johnson and prime minister's questions. i should have got a third. you should. course. we're getting should. of course. we're getting suella bravermans big statement as to bring as well. we're going to bring all juicy bits, the all the juicy bits, the interesting bits digest interesting bits and digest exactly means for us. exactly what it means for us. >> is she going to say? is >> what is she going to say? is she to lay into the prime she going to lay into the prime minister? is she going to lay into the government's

immigration plan or is this her posturing prime posturing to be the next prime minister? could be a geoffrey minister? could it be a geoffrey howe moment, the moment that in effect margaret effect brought down margaret thatcher back in 1990? >> we've got the popcorn at the ready. be looking it. ready. we'll be looking at it. but also, course, we've but also, of course, we've looked some of the looked at some of the interesting covid interesting bits of the covid inquiry, the covid lawyer, some of the interesting bits has been telling fibs. we're going to go through what the actual charts say compared to what has been say compared to what he has been telling boris johnson. it's all to come of course, after prime minister's questions >> brilliant. okay. thank you, tom and emily. tom there with he looks bit like eat out help looks a bit like eat out to help out. kind of reminds me out. he just kind of reminds me stood there with his with his bowls there eat out help bowls there eat out to help out the throw up. the virus to throw up. >> yeah was was just >> yeah i was i was just thinking what tom was saying actually about the fact that people will be looking at the figures of what boris was saying. >> the beauty of this covid inquiry to some extent, and i know we're quite know we're being quite derogatory, very derogatory about can take about it, is that we can take what says now and the likes what he says now and the likes of go away and look of us can go away and look at it. but think that just adds it. but i think that just adds

to frustration. maybe steve to the frustration. maybe steve i think it does. >> what's interesting, i think initial >> what's interesting, i think initi launched, the indication was was launched, the indication was to actually throw under to actually throw boris under the know, the i think the bus. you know, the i think it still is. and well, hancock has not covered himself in glory. no, but for me, but the really interesting, the revelation , the sort of the revelation, the sort of the takeaway for the takeaway for me is the infighting so—called infighting amongst the so—called experts. , you've got 6 or experts. i mean, you've got 6 or 7 think we had 7 experts, and i think we had five you know, 7 experts, and i think we had five sort you know, 7 experts, and i think we had five sort of you know, 7 experts, and i think we had five sort of vaccination'ou know, 7 experts, and i think we had five sort of vaccination groups iv, the sort of vaccination groups and the emergency groups. yeah, the sort of vaccination groups and tof emergency groups. yeah, the sort of vaccination groups and tof emergcouldgroups. yeah, the sort of vaccination groups and tof emergcould seem;. yeah, the sort of vaccination groups and tof emergcould seem to 'eah, the sort of vaccination groups and tof emergcould seem to agree none of them could seem to agree amongst makes amongst themselves, which makes me that with the world me think that with the world health pandemic health organisation's pandemic treaty horizon and the treaty on the horizon and the international health regulation changes through, isn't changes going through, isn't this conclude ? this just going to conclude? >> lot can't sort it >> well, you lot can't sort it out yourselves. we need out amongst yourselves. we need the grown ups. need the the grown ups. we need the people who are running the world health organisation to take this out of your silly little democratic hands. >> that's a very >> well, that's a very legitimate . i think legitimate fear. and i think that problem with this that the problem with this inquiry the whole inquiry is that the whole purpose investigating these purpose of investigating these things to ensure we things is to ensure that we don't make the mistakes don't make the same mistakes again. to take so again. but it's going to take so long reach long until we reach a conclusion. that conclusion long until we reach a coprobably that conclusion long until we reach a coprobably going 1at conclusion

long until we reach a coprobably going 1at c01woolly1 is probably going to be woolly and equivocal. is probably going to be woolly and equivocal . and as you say, i and equivocal. and as you say, i think that there will be many people who are concerned that this will basically just conclude the government was incompetent to incompetent and we need to outsource ourselves the outsource ourselves to the adults, international adults i >> -- >> the global pandemic comes along before inquiry is along before the inquiry is finished. i mean, what happens then lessons we then? what lessons have we learned?do you dragging out the >> how do you dragging out the world health organisation is going france, you going to say to france, you know, go out tonight know, you can't go out tonight to bistro . to le bistro. >> you've to stay at home. >> you've got to stay at home. the french are going, set the french are going, oh, set them on. the problem . you know, them on. the problem. you know, them on. the problem. you know, the organisation the world health organisation doesn't power. doesn't have that sort of power. >> space, mr p, >> oh, watch this space, mr p, you this is, this comes on to what we were discussing earlier, though, your were though, about your you were a big a digital id system, big fan of a digital id system, a regular of humanity. a regular notion of humanity. >> people would >> and some people would say membership society membership card for the society that this country. it won't that is this country. it won't be this country, unfortunately, as we've already got one. >> effectively, every time you use card your use your oyster card or your credit know so much credit card, they know so much about us. >> do we have one? emma digital footprint? i mean, to. that's >> i mean, we need to. that's true. i'm with beth on this. we need to resist of that. need to resist all of that.

>>