hello this is bbc news with lu kwesa burak. the headlines... the bbc has been told seven individuals have been detained following a military operation on a tanker off the coast of the isle of wight. more pressure on the government, as thousands of doctors back the footballer, marcus rashford's campaign for free school meals during the school holidays. after a public backlash, the welsh government says it will review its ban on supermarkets selling nonessential items during the country's two—week lockdown.

spain's government announces a new state of emergency as it tackles the virus — a national curfew from from 11pm until six in the morning is due to come in from sunday. now on bbc news... the bbc‘s political editor laura kuenssberg talks to former head of the civil service lord sedwill about the uk government's response to the coronavirus pandemic, attacks on the civil service, and global diplomacy, in his first tv interview since leaving thejob. in terms of what's going on in your mind in terms of that unpredictability in the world. would be easierfor the uk if there was more predictable partner across the atlantic? i think the relationship of the us actually is stable and of course, the politics is pretty volatile

and we in an election campaign in president trump is a very unusual occupant of that office in his personal style and the way he articulates the us position. but the underlying alliance is based on much more than the individual relationships at the top, although those critically important. in particular, you cured on the carrier that we have a gap of ten years we did not have that and went amount to an american carrier a couple of years ago where the first crew of the ships company of the ships carrier route training, preparing to take on this responsibility and we had american aircraft in the latest nato exercises, us marine core, flying off. all of the some of the nuclear enterprise, the intelligence exchange, those are the real foundations of the special relationship going by the way back to the postwar period. and then you have some ups and downs

and the other political level, but the fundamentals are really strong. there has been difficult for the uk when there have been american political leadership to doesn't necessarily want to play ball with nato, that does not want to use the united nations that the same way other governments have done before. you know, the institutions that have been part of preserving and creating peace in the west. it must‘ve been challenging. yes, of course. when the institutions, particularly the ones the uk benefited from because the multilateral system was one in which we had a major part in shape and the first place and has suited the countries interest very well. it's obviously challenging when those institutions are underused or there are challenges to them. this isn't the first us administration but we've had difficulties with in the un, for example. several in the past been highly critical of the un and have withdrawn from the un bodies have been to these ups

and downs. it is reasonable to expect that the us is inevitably going to take on more unilateral positions in countries like the uk who invest heavily in the multilateral system. would it also be reasonable to say that the uk and easy for the west to show a more united front if there was a different tone coming from the white house? i think the western alliance needs american leadership and whoever is in the white house, the western alliance functions most effectively and by that, i mean the broader democratic alliance, i'm using western not in a geogrpahoic way there, rather than geographical since if it is strong american leadership and as a global perspective. has that been missing in the past years? it has been more up and down the last years. we have seen strong american leadership in some areas. the abraham of course just recently have been really strong diplomatic

efforts by the americans to bring arab nations and isrreal into a more normal relationship, and not withstanding some of the tone of nato, american investment in defence and has increased in the past few years and the relationship between president trump and the method very strong in his generated more investment from european nations. sometimes, you have to look at the red records the substance and the political and diplomatic world, is part of the substance as well. —— rhetoric. do you think the west was naive in the last decade when it looked at russian china is coming closer. people were very hopeful of our progress in real steps towards democracy, and we have seen this country and governments perhaps trip up or maybe look the other way and find themselves losing out? you have been the national security adviser and cabinet secretary in this period, do you think the west has been to naive?

i think when we have allowed the rhetoric to suggest that countries with very different political systems, essentially authoritarian plitical systems and edging towards our values and viewing the world, we probably have been mistaken and have overstated the natural alliance is to begin the natural allighment. you can be part of o business in countries that are varied and political systems. we have done it over decades, if not centuries. we'll be friends and allies of people with the same values. those that run on capitalist systems rather than authoritarian countries or countries that run state—based systems. that does not mean we can't co—operate or have a partnership with them on certain issues. but we must not be naive about the underlying nature of the political system or how they see their interests. you know, i think sometimes you are right and some of the rhetoric and some of the language around that has

perhaps given the impression that we are aligning in ways that we aren't. it does not mean we can't do business. but it does not mean that we are aligned in terms of values in view of the world. do you feel that times the uk and, believe what they wanted to hear? i would not put it that way. sometimes, you have to remember, the other sites of politics too and so some of the language about engagement and strategic partnerships is necessary to actually run the kind of relationship you want, even if it is quite transactional beneath that. because in diplomacy and international relationships, respect for each other, language that acknowledges the strengths of other countries and so on, is part of building the kind of relationship that enables you to do business. it does not mean that you're not clear eyed about the kind of regime you're

dealing with but nor do you have to be rude about it. looking at the decision for huawei, for example, the uk was going to do business with them over the sg networks and that was reversed under a different prime minister. was it a mistake the first time? what changed ? the facts changed. this decision over this in the past prime minister, the decision had to be changed by this prime minister from an early one that he and the others had taken was because there were three factors. security, and security of the networks. there was the commitment to roll—out superfast broadband nationwide which was in the manifesto, and the geopolitical issues against china. ministers had to balance is office up security, the cybersecurity was clear but our networks could be and would be designed in a way that enable us to encompass huawei and others. let's not forget, other providers to be taken over, mergers,

you can i guarantee it over a long period of the nature of your provider. we designed our networks to be secure. the reason the decision was changed because of an american decision to essentially sanction particular technology that huawei was using, and that meant huawei could no longer be a reliable provider to our networks. it was not that we reversed or position of the nature of huawei or the fact of it being a chinese company, it was just a practical change in their weight of to be able to provide. is that really what happend? wasn'tjust that america became more and also the a0 party, the americans were hawkish towards them towards the beginning. from the beginning. in this prime minister, he was very hawkish position on huawei and that is why i these three factors that we had to bounce off. —— balance off. security, the commitment to roll—out

broadband in the geopolitical factor was us and china. the swing factor in the shift that the government took about huawei poss possibility to provide the network that affected but the security and broadband, the geopolitical aspect was the most stable part of it because the americans are putting this on a lot of pressure throughout this period. and this pandemic has also been a security issue and lots of which around the world and leaders have been challenged by the pandemic but, what do you think the government got wrong in the early months trying to handle it? we don't yet know, in the end, the inquiry and whenever it comes, will have to address two big questions. one is whether it was the right decision taken at the right time and whether or not the government

was operating, as all governments were, without knowing everything we now know about the nature of this disease, its transmission rates and so on. and so, did we imposed the lockdown fast enough? was it done in the right way? were there different measures and convey been targeted in different ways? we don't know the facts of that. everyone was trying to make the right decisions on the right time on the basis of the information we had at the time. the second big question is what is less exposed, what are the capabilities that the state had to deploy against this? what were the decisions taken for many years about contention capabilities versus current priorities and so on, particularly in health, and those can be considered as one. what is your own view? now i know we are not going to acquire yet, but theirs in the government was too slow to understand the disease the beginning and you expressed some frustration that the government

was unable to act fast enough. you know, he's talked about trying to pull levers and nothing happening. now, you talk about readiness there. was the government really robust going into this? i think that goes to this point about what were capabilities as a whole. clearly, although we had exercised her pandemic and threats. exercised and prepared for pandemic threats. we didn't have in place, the exact measures, we had not rehearsed the measures for a pandemic that the covid—i9 and the challenge covid—i9 presented. if it had been a different pandemic, the answer would not have been the lockdown or different kind of measures for different disease. it is sort of in place of the capabilities against every it is hard to of the capabilities against every possible kind of pandemic because of the kinds of disease, the measures would have been, if you look at what we did in terms of imposing the lockdown and then creating the economic programmes

to support people through it, i think we should be really proud of the speed with which those were devised and implemented and how quickly the public service responded. i think there is a genuine question about whether we could been better prepared in the first place and that is obviously a very interesting challenge. there was a sense at the beginning, the government is really grappling to deal with this, and at one point, the prime minister was extremely ill, you are also unwell, the prime minister poss positive adviser was unwell and no one seemed quite to be in charge. i think during that period, cabinet and government and the contingency systems kicked in right away. i was in a particularly ill, i decided to isolate during that period and i was lucky, i had a bout of it in and the systems we had in place for when the prime minister was unavailable or incapacitated,

kicked in very smoothly and national security was very rehearsed and developed quickly and the prime minister might simply be out of contact and so we had deputies for various national security crisis. in that case, we talked to the prime minister if he were incapacitated or in the hospital and essentially out of reach as he was in intensive care, and we agreed with him in advance and the first secretary would step in with the ministerial structures around him to support him and i think the robustness of our government proved itself. obviously, we did not have the most visible in the prime minister himself up front, and that is a challenge for any government, but i think the government coped with it quite well. so many issues about ppe or testing, it's only for from the outside, you talked about the treasuries efforts in the quick response but it felt like the government was struggling to get a grip and ministers would say now

the civil service was meant to be a rolls—royce and the british machine, in some parts, it was more like a rusty old banger. the civil service of government, i think there was general challenge, there was a shortage of pp worldwide. for the requirements that we had and we had to scramble, as other governments and try and make sure we had enough of the right kind of ppe available to us across the system and those really challenging to people. absolutely. and one of the things we learned as a result of covid—i9 is that we are over dependent on a handful of supply chains. there is over specialisation in this area. we need a more resilient series of supply chains it may cost more, but we need more resilient supply chains for some of these crucial goods. every country struggled to acquire sufficient ppe and part of the work we are going to do with the g7 presidency next year on economic resilience

is about ensuring that we will have some of the supply chains. in the end, it was really tough and you and others were right to be challenging us all the time in pointing out where the ppe distribution wasn't working and so on, actually, the uk probably got more than ourfair share of all was available in the end. what was it like in government at that period? was very challenging. we were dealing with an unknown virus and in the sense of all of its characteristics are unknown. we were learning from the scientists as went along. so, we were dealing with high levels of uncertainty and incomplete information in it was intense. what was it like dealing with the government at that point during that intense period? it also the chief adviser, many people were absolutely outraged by that. do you think dominic cummings should've quit over that?

i don't think it's for me to say whether or not he should quit. it was clearly a, clearly a difficult moment for him because it only came out sometime after it happened and said it was a mistake, whether everyone should quit every time they make a mistake, i don't think that's right. but it clearly undermined the governments narrative about people following the rules, and he had to explain that when he spoke at downing street. in terms ministers views of what happened there, saying that basically everyone was very focused on trying to do the best they can. i don't but they were the same that every government had whether or not he should quit. but they were the same that every government had around the world. but there was a feeling that government shame was somewhat exposed during that period. yes, it's always going to be exposed by a crisis on this scale and the question of how well did we cope, there were questions about over the capabilities that we had to start

with and was at the right balance for investment made in contingent over many years and how will to be cope once the crisis hit us. i was really proud of the great deal. and to take an example if you go back to march, with not some other countries in europe where people were dying and having the treatment they needed, they did not have ventilators, they're dying in hospital corridors. and we made sure that at pace, we put in place the capabilities of systems than the national health service that meant everyone got the treatment they needed throughout the period. the nightengales hospitals were built in record time and then the end, they did not need to be used, but we would've recredited if we had not put that capacity into place. —— regretted. there are two questions, how would we react and i'm really proud of a great deal that they did during the period.

how well were we prepared is another question. clearly, were going to look at whether we should have invested more in contingent capabilities, but you have to remember, those are big political choices made by previous governments and those choices would've meant investing lesson to something else. it is always a question of priorities. you've talked about this before. during that period and immediate aftermath of phase one of the pandemic, there was briefing against you and your left government. what really happened was that like? i've been really clear several times that the briefing of that kind is really damaging. it is damaging to trust between officials and ministers and it's damaging between ministers because often is that too. if that means is within government, it undermines the candour with which people can operate and when you're making some of the really tough decisions and supporting ministers make us sun was really tough decisions

that we were talking about earlier. it is damaging to good gevernace and those responsible should recognise the damage they're doing even if they are indulging themselves in some tactical short—term tactical ploy and of course it was unpleasant for me and part of the rough—and—tumble of modern government, unfortunately, and if you cannot stand the heat, you have to find a different career. but that wasn't the reason why i chose to sit down and i need to talk to the pm about it. i took the job of the cabinet secretary, knowledge of expected —— notajob —— not a job i was ever really expecting to do. the national security adviser was the job i essentially prepared most of my career, the last trimester, i said i would do it for as long as it made sense to combine the two jobs limits when it made sense to separate them again so the cabinet secretary could have the premise to focus on the domestic agenda, and focus on the global, they'll be the time for me to move on.

covid—i9 probably changed the timing of that a bit. six or nine months and that would've been the case otherwise but that was definitely the case that it would have gone sometime in the first two years of this parliament in order for my success to support the prime minister through the rest. soi so i agree but the timing with the pm. so we thought it would make sense, the time it came to separate the jobs again, time for me to move on to move on into something else. and you talk about the rough—and—tumble of modern politics if you agree the timing of your departure and there has been some quite extraordinary rough—and—tumble with this government keen to reform the civil service, but six have gone in the last fewmonths that is an extraordinary level of turmoil and it makes people very worried about the government trying to do. there is concern that that is, the truth is more complex than that, quite common for a significant number of secretaries to move on in the first year of the department.

the numbers are probably not particularly out of children the numbers are probably not particularly out of kilter with what we would've seen after other general elections and a couple of those people have come to the end of their five—year tenure. was a natural moment for them to move on. and there have been specific issues around... quite like this. one of them saying that they had presided over a culture of bullying and once said publicly that they were able to break the law and this is more the market that you're getting rid —— margaret thatcher. something bigger is going on your, isn't it? yes, there are those features to this, in those individual cases. you are right, but you should not see an overall pattern that somehow or other the removal of secretaries main strands of civil service. we need reform in the public service. i spoke about this

a couple months ago, actually before fundamental public service reform, much more important than the rotation of personalities of the topic. but, of course, i'm regretful over the departure from the home office, it was really difficult period for him and him secretary, jonathanjones chose to go because he did not agree with the legal advice of the attorney general offered to government and resigned as a matter of principle. what do you think the government is trying to do with the civil service, and are you comfortable with how they are going about it? because every government talks about reforming the civil service. every government talks by moving staff out of london and be more representative and all those things. what many people see in this government is a group of people who like picking a fight and in the civil service is one of the institutions in this country that they like punching around the head. would you think they're trying to do? —— what do you think they're trying to do? if you look at michael go's speech

in italy, a few months ago, that where some very thoughtful ideas of reform there. and a lot of it is about modernisation of the institution. they need to embrace the digital revolution and do things differently and enable us to provide a better service to some of our most vulnerable citizens. we should not confuse civil service with the wider public service or whitehall service, and modernisation. and in narrative around the service, i do not think is helpful and actually, we share ministers on the record, they're very positive about what they get from the civil service and they expressed some frustrations, i think we all share those when things don't work, but they're very positive from what they get from the civil service and asked some of these individuals have moved on, they have been replaced by rising stars from within the civil service. so, is about the institution, it is about an agenda to try

——so, it issn‘t about the institution, it is about an agenda to try and make sure that the people to have confidence in and a wider reform of the institution. and when we see attacks on the civil service, attacks on the integrity, attacks on the capabilities because they don't believe the affair and can't really answer back. when they are in the record, they are generally pretty supportive. that's the difference though, isn't it? on the record and then what's happened privately are a very different thing. does that undermine the civil service and its impartiality? because sometimes there's an impression in this government that you have to be a friend of boris johnson government that you have to be a friend of borisjohnson or on his agenda in order to prosper, and if you don't, then you are out?” agenda in order to prosper, and if you don't, then you are out? i don't think that's right, and let's not forget, one of us is a phrase that was used before i entered the civil service and when we were both still in education. so it's not the first time once heard that kind of thing. actually, you know, no i's ever asked me what my political views are

oi’ asked me what my political views are or which way i voted or anything of that kind, and i haven't seen any sign of that elsewhere. we go through periods of this kind when there is perceived to be an attack on the underlying values of the civil service, but actually, those values in the institution serving governments with impartiality have a lwa ys governments with impartiality have always prevailed. i'm confident they will continue to do so. the job at the civil services to deliver the government's agenda and it needs to do it. do you think boris johnson is a good prime minister? yeah, i do think he's a good prime minister. but every prime minister, he's the seventh prime minister i've worked under... seventh? probably the fourth or fifth i've served and reasonable close proximity, and it's a job you can shape around your personality. almost unlike any other job in government. so his style of doing thejob is different job in government. so his style of doing the job is different to job in government. so his style of doing thejob is different to his predecessors, different to the previous ones that i've worked for.

but he's got a very clear agenda and he's seeking to deliver it. and that at the end of the day is the job of the prime minister. one more question, one of the things the payment astray is doing is carrying out a big defence review, what words of advice or words of caution or encouragement to give the government as they are looking at their defence review? we are looking at something ofa review? we are looking at something of a junction to where we began this conversation. i think the clue is in the title. it's a integrated review and covering defence reform policy development and so on. that is the key to this particular review. 2017 capability review, national security capability review, national security capability review, national security capability review, we developed the fusion doctrine, that was essentially about bringing all of that, national security, essentially about bringing all of that, nationalsecurity, national capabilities together in support of oui’ capabilities together in support of our economic objectives as well as oui’ our economic objectives as well as our security and defence objectives. that's the starting point for this review, and it's quickly important that it's the end point is welcome of that it's generally integrated and generally enables our country as it carves out a new destiny for

ourselves and the world, post—brexit, that we have all of those capabilities brought to bear in an integrated way to support our national objectives. might that mean smaller defence forces? it will mean different defence forces and some elements will be smaller, undoubtedly, and other elements will grow. that's the nature of innovation in defence security. will be helped by nato? some people are suggesting you may put your hat in the ring? i'm flattered for people to suggest that. when you look at the people who have done thatjob in the people who have done thatjob in the past, there is another two years to run for the currents, but who knows what i will be doing two years time to make it will be great to have another british secretary—general angelo let's see who the government nominates at that time. hello. yesterday's heavy and persistent rain was replaced by a mix of sunshine and showers today. it has been a pretty wet weekend and it stays very unsettled through the coming week. there'll be some brisk winds, more heavy rain at times. that brings the risk of some localised flooding. it should turn milder later in the week.

but as we go through this evening and tonight, plenty more showers, especially in the west. could be some flashes of lightning, some rumbles of thunder. not as many showers across eastern areas, that's where we will have the lower temperatures, a few spots might get down to 2—3 degrees. tomorrow, another day of sunshine and showers, some of the showers, again, will be heavy. the focus of the showers will tend to shift eastwards, though, so further west, northern ireland, wales, the south—west of england, fewer showers through the afternoon and some spells of sunshine. windy in the south, the winds easing across scotland. temperatures between 10—14 degrees. we'll see some heavy rain pushing eastwards during tuesday, some blustery showers on wednesday but it will turn milder for the end of the week. but it will turn milder

this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. spain and italy introduce new emergency measures to slow the spread of the coronavirus. the bbc understands seven individuals have been detained following a military operation on a tanker off the uk's south coast. police in belarus fire stun grenades at protesters calling for the resignation of president alexander lu kashenko. coming up on the sport in 15 minutes' time. the sky is the limit for lewis hamilton after beating the all—time record of formula 1 ones. the british driver surpassed michael schumacher with his 92nd victory at the portuguese grand