�* cannot agree, they cannot agree, they can even if they cannot agree, they can understand. as i say, i can only apologise for the whole thing. fik. apologise for the whole thing. ok. we have talked apologise for the whole thing. oiq we have talked a lot so apologise for the whole thing. i>if;. we have talked a lot so far apologise for the whole thing. i>ii. we have talked a lot so far about things that went wrong but i think we should spend some time on the big thing that went right, which was the vaccine programme. i have got three colleagues that want to ask you about that. let me open by seeing what is it that you think we got right on the vaccine that was so different to some of the other things we have been talking about today? fundamentally, on vaccines, there was clear responsibility, someone in charge of it and she was working with patrick vallance, built a team of people that understood what they were doing. and she had the kind of strength of character not to be pushed around by, so, we had a

formal thing which was, you are in charge of it,... you report basically directly to the pm, not to the department of health. so she knew her boss was on it. the... built a great team and we also set to her, treat this like a wartime thing. ignore rules, if lawyers get in your way, come to us, we will find ways of bulldozing them out of your way. find ways of bulldozing them out of yourway. itjust, clear your way. it just, clear accountability, yourway. itjust, clear accountability, people that really understood what they were doing, relative to almost everything else in whitehall, extremely low friction. some great technical help. i think those things when you put them together, meant that it worked better than pretty much anything else. i think this is not in any

sense a comment on kate, i think the fact it worked out relatively well to the rest of the world shouldn't blind us to the fact that the only really got that going, my first conversations about the idea of it with anybody or in march, patrick vallance texted me on roughly the 20... 24th of march, i think it was. something like that. i've got the exact date. like other things, there is no doubt we could actually have done this faster than we did. the conventional wisdom was we are not going to be able to have any vaccines by 2020. in march, i started getting calls from various people seeing these new mrna vaccines could well smash the conventional wisdom, don't

necessarily stick to it. people like bill gates in that network were saying... essentially, what happened is... there is a network of people, bill gates —type people, seeing completely rethink the paradigms of how you do this. build everything in parallel, here is the science, the manufacturing, distribution, supply, logistics, data, the normal thing is you kind of do those sequentially. what bill gates and people like that said to me and others at number ten was, think of this much more like some of the classic programmes of the past. the manhattan project, the apollo programme, build it in parallel. in normal government accounting terms, this is completely crazy, because if nothing works out, you've spent literally building building these things and at the end, you get zero. it's always. but what bill gates and people said,

what bill gates and people said, what patrick vallance and patrick's team said, was actually the expected return on this is so high that even if it does turn out to be a waste of billions, it is still a good gamble in the end. the conventional whitehall accountancy systems for this can't basically count with it, you have to throw them down the toilet and that's essentially what we did. patrick came to me and said, "i want to do this. i think we must take out the department of health," in mind this is when we were having conversations about ppe, testing, shielding, the things we had gone through today already, all of these different things being wrong, patrick said, take it out of the department of health. will you support me on that with the pm? i said absolutely i will. i spoke to the cabinet secretary, the cabinet secretary agreed because he was

watching these meetings in april about all the problems the dh had. so weirdly, this was one of the things that actually had almost no real formal meetings and actually very little discussion. patrick, me and the cabinet secretary all basically went to the prime minister when he came back from being ill and said there isjust when he came back from being ill and said there is just no alternative. we got to do it like this, it's inconceivable we can leave it in dh, here's this structure. the prime minister decided in about 90 seconds, fine, do it. that was it. there was basically not really any formal... there was a bit of whingeing here and there about... a bit of pushback in some quarters, saying this is extremely risky. if you don't go down the eu approach and that works and we do it ourselves, and it doesn't work, you guys are all going to be in huge political whole. but guys are all going to be in huge political whole.— guys are all going to be in huge political whole. but you have to take risks? _ political whole. but you have to take risks? you _ political whole. but you have to take risks? you have _ political whole. but you have to take risks? you have to - political whole. but you have to take risks? you have to take i political whole. but you have to i take risks? you have to take risks and when we _ take risks? you have to take risks

and when we look _ take risks? you have to take risks and when we look to _ take risks? you have to take risks and when we look to the - take risks? you have to take risks and when we look to the eu - take risks? you have to take risks and when we look to the eu plan, j take risks? you have to take risks - and when we look to the eu plan, not just me but the people that really understood vaccines and some procurement experts that we asked to look at it, all said the eu plan looks like classic eu, it will be completely bogged down in bureaucracy, they will not be able to take the right financing decisions, they won't do this parallel approach of building everything and subsidising everything and subsidising everything as you go along. so it seemed at the time like that was just clearly the right thing to do and thank goodness that was one of the few things i think that we got right. the few things i think that we got riuht. . ~ the few things i think that we got riuht. ., ~' ,., the few things i think that we got riuht. ., ~' , , right. thank you. let me bring in my colleauue, right. thank you. let me bring in my colleague, zarah _ right. thank you. let me bring in my colleague, zarah sultana. _ right. thank you. let me bring in my colleague, zarah sultana. i - right. thank you. let me bring in my colleague, zarah sultana. i was - colleague, zarah sultana. i was meant to come _ colleague, zarah sultana. i was meant to come in _ colleague, zarah sultana. i was meant to come in earlier - colleague, zarah sultana. i was meant to come in earlier but i i colleague, zarah sultana. i was i meant to come in earlier but i had colleague, zarah sultana. i was - meant to come in earlier but i had a pmos_ meant to come in earlier but i had a pmos i_ meant to come in earlier but i had a pmqs i won't go entirely on vaccines _ pmqs i won't go entirely on vaccines. i want to pick up on some points— vaccines. i want to pick up on some points you — vaccines. i want to pick up on some points you made earlier. regarding herd immunity. you said it was an unavoidable — herd immunity. you said it was an unavoidable fact and it was the official — unavoidable fact and it was the official part of the government. did the prime — official part of the government. did the prime minister acknowledged that pursuing _ the prime minister acknowledged that pursuing this would result in an excess — pursuing this would result in an excess of— pursuing this would result in an excess of 500,000 deaths and was he 0k excess of 500,000 deaths and was he ok with _ excess of 500,000 deaths and was he ok with that death toll or death

toll of— ok with that death toll or death toll of that margin? the ok with that death toll or death toll of that margin?— toll of that margin? the prime minister was _ toll of that margin? the prime minister was definitely - toll of that margin? the prime minister was definitely aware l toll of that margin? the prime i minister was definitely aware that herd immunity, as i said earlier on, by september, in a single wave, herd immunity was the official plan a. on the 12th, the prime minister, like me, heard in the conversation about chickenpox parties, and the interviews the few people gave about herd immunity, and the prime minister, like me, started to think, hang on a second. this sounds... at best, extremely frightening. is this really what we're going to do? but as i said, up until... when we had a meeting on the 14th, the whole point of that meeting was, here is the

real numbers and what to herd immunity by september strategy really means. it's on the best case, 260,000 people dead on the dh was �*s on thing. we can't do that. we just can't do it. we got to gamble on an alternative plan. but at that point, remember the conventional wisdom was if you do gamble on an alternative plan, it will not be tuned in 60,000 people dead, it might be two or three orfour times that people dead, it might be two or three or four times that in the autumn and that was the argument that played out between the night of the 13th and when we really decided to lockdown by the weekend of the, back end of the following week. it's completely bizarre. everybody knows the secretary of state for health, the secretary of state for health, the chief scientific adviser, chief medical officer, were briefing laura

kingsbury, robert peston, the key media people in the week of the ninth on single peak herd immunity by september plan. it's totally bizarre and incomprehensible that the government would, number ten would try to deny that when it was officially described on the official documents, the csa etc, people from sage said it on tv. the cabinet secretary described as the chickenpox party on the 12th. that was the whole. .. chickenpox party on the 12th. that was the whole... i'm completely baffled as to why the return is now trying to deny that was the plan. the whole point is that was the original plan, but we realised what the consequences of it were going to be. and we decided it was intolerable and had to try to try something else.— intolerable and had to try to try something else. this issue and the number of whether _ something else. this issue and the number of whether the _ something else. this issue and the number of whether the prime i number of whether the prime minister's actions have led to death was asked — minister's actions have led to death was asked at pmqs and the pm said they would be reviewed in a public inquiry— they would be reviewed in a public inquiry which will start next

spring _ inquiry which will start next spring. you said that would be too narrow _ spring. you said that would be too narrow in— spring. you said that would be too narrow in scope. do you support the call of— narrow in scope. do you support the call of bereaved families for a statutory _ call of bereaved families for a statutory public inquiry that is independent and led by a judge? | independent and led by a judge? i don't know about being led by a judge because often these judge —like things actual don't, the history is they don't get to the bottom of it but the principle of it, yes. ithink bottom of it but the principle of it, yes. i think the idea any kind of serious inquiry lessons learned doesn't startle next year is completely terrible. the families of all tens of thousands of people died who didn't die. there's absolutely no excuse for delaying because a lot of the reasons that happened in place now. look at the debate about variant s. place now. look at the debate about variants. if number ten won't tell the truth today about the official plan which they briefed the media about and described on tv are you 90, about and described on tv are you go, what i asked else is going on in there now? so yes, i do, and i also

think if you go back, this is not about dragging brexit into anything but if you go back to yours, if mps could seize control of the legislative programme, say we are in charge, not number ten, when it came to brexit in the second referendum, why on earth can mps not take control now and say it's intolerable that this can be delayed? of the elected representatives of the families of people who died who didn't die, must get to groups with this now. there's absolutely no excuse for delaying it and the longer it is delayed, the more people will rewrite memories, the more documents will go astray. the more documents will go astray. the more the whole thing will become cancerous. , , ., , , cancerous. one issue has been the prime minister's _ cancerous. one issue has been the prime minister's reluctance - cancerous. one issue has been the prime minister's reluctance to i cancerous. one issue has been the | prime minister's reluctance to meet the brief— prime minister's reluctance to meet the brief family group. why is the prime _ the brief family group. why is the prime minister running away from

meeting _ prime minister running away from meeting with them, do you think? | meeting with them, do you think? i can't imagine why. ok. _ meeting with them, do you think? i can't imagine why. ok. i— meeting with them, do you think? i can't imagine why. ok. iwill- meeting with them, do you think? i can't imagine why. ok. i will movel can't imagine why. ok. iwill move onto my question _ can't imagine why. ok. iwill move onto my question about _ can't imagine why. ok. iwill move onto my question about contracts. | onto my question about contracts. byline _ onto my question about contracts. byline times and overview of contract _ byline times and overview of contract awards reveals that a year after _ contract awards reveals that a year after the _ contract awards reveals that a year after the first covid looked on, almost — after the first covid looked on, almost £1_ after the first covid looked on, almost £1 billion in government contracts— almost £1 billion in government contracts has been awarded to 15 firms— contracts has been awarded to 15 firms that — contracts has been awarded to 15 firms that are linked to conservative donors and there had, more _ conservative donors and there had, more research continues showing this trend~ _ more research continues showing this trend. during your time at downing street, _ trend. during your time at downing street, was— trend. during your time at downing street, was their concern about the contract _ street, was their concern about the contract process? that it was not fair or— contract process? that it was not fair or transparent and was anything really— fair or transparent and was anything really done — fair or transparent and was anything really done to address this? initially, _ really done to address this? initially, there wasn't... initially, there wasn't... initially, in february, march, no. all of our concern was justice disaster. ——just all of our concern was justice disaster. —— just this disaster. coming at us. my concern was all the

blocks in the procurement system and not being able to do things like sign fast contracts with testing companies to get testing, stuff like that and ppe. so i would say, january, february, march, my concerns and most of the concerns in number ten were capability and speed and buying what we need and getting ppe to the front line and things like that. later on, there were concerns, yes. because various stories started to come out into the media about what was happening and we suddenly started reading things about vip channels and whatnot we suddenly started reading things about vip channels and what not and what were these vip charles? who was in charge of them, how has that been done? but that did not cross my radar until... i can remember but i would guess something like may. not in the first phase, for sure. in terms of some of the contracts, a

contract _ terms of some of the contracts, a contract withjulia terms of some of the contracts, a contract with julia worth £70 million. _ contract with julia worth £70 million, four sterile gowns, almost all of— million, four sterile gowns, almost all of them — million, four sterile gowns, almost all of them could be used, because they requested double packaging and another— they requested double packaging and another contract for facemasks completely unusable because it had the wrong _ completely unusable because it had the wrong type of fitting. in terms of some _ the wrong type of fitting. in terms of some of— the wrong type of fitting. in terms of some of these mistakes, the government have said we were in a panic— government have said we were in a panic situation, had to order things. _ panic situation, had to order things. in— panic situation, had to order things, in hindsight and going forward, _ things, in hindsight and going forward, what kind of processes do we need _ forward, what kind of processes do we need to— forward, what kind of processes do we need to make sure that we are not throwing _ we need to make sure that we are not throwing millions if not billions of bounds _ throwing millions if not billions of pounds essentially down the toilet for wrong — pounds essentially down the toilet for wrong items? | pounds essentially down the toilet for wrong items?— for wrong items? i think... i won't bore for wrong items? ithink... iwon't bore everybody — for wrong items? ithink... iwon't bore everybody with _ for wrong items? ithink... iwon't bore everybody with going - for wrong items? ithink... iwon't bore everybody with going back i bore everybody with going back through the history of this, but i said many times before, including actually, i won't go into that. many times before that a procurement system is completely unfit for its

purposesin system is completely unfit for its purposes in whitehall. ironically, in january purposes in whitehall. ironically, injanuary and february, wherein i should have been paying far more attention to covid, one of the big issues i, all this stuff about cultural wars and whatnot, i had literally nothing to do with that. one of the biggest issues i was dealing with was this procurement thing, i was bringing dealing with was this procurement thing, iwas bringing in dealing with was this procurement thing, i was bringing in outside experts, a guy at oxford who has a very hard to pronounce name, to try to address this problem of how do you get a procurement system? the problem is, wejust did not have time to sort this out before the crisis hit. the fundamental thing is there needs to be a legal proper emergency fast track process. there needs to have people with the skills to exercise that at speed and scale,

the problem you had in february, march, april was, you had a legal structure with a whole bunch of horrific eu laws then horrific whitehall gold—plating on top of that. then you had a set of officials who had only ever worked inside the system. then you had this completely unprecedented crisis, and then you have people like me shouting, call the airlines, tell them taking their planes, we're flying them to china, find the nearest airfield, through the ppe in the back, flying back. there was no system to do that at all. everything was just like, system to do that at all. everything wasjust like, can we do system to do that at all. everything was just like, can we do that? is system to do that at all. everything wasjust like, can we do that? is it legal? what happens if we do it and people start suing us? the obvious lesson, one of the things that i spent my time on in the summer and autumn was, changing the legal framework and changing the kind of

recruitment and skills and training and everything, so that you have got and everything, so that you have got a set of people in place that can just do that, you know. there should be a trigger point where the parliament votes on something, the prime minister presses a button marked an end when that's done, —— marked, panic. when that happens, there is an emergency system where people are authorised to just go, right, we have to smash this, execute at scale, we have to do it fast. if that means calling people up fast. if that means calling people up and doing handshakes over the phone and we will get the money to you, take off now, that's what's got to happen but we didn't have... that did not exist. last to happen but we didn't have... that did not exist-— to happen but we didn't have... that did not exist._ my i did not exist. last question. my final question _ did not exist. last question. my final question about _ did not exist. last question. my final question about vaccines. i did not exist. last question. my i final question about vaccines. you mentioned — final question about vaccines. you mentioned bill gates who has vocally opposed _ mentioned bill gates who has vocally opposed ip wavers and we know that

vaccine _ opposed ip wavers and we know that vaccine production globally is throttled for many reasons, whether it is the _ throttled for many reasons, whether it is the control of vaccines by wealthier— it is the control of vaccines by wealthier countries in the hoarding of vaccines — wealthier countries in the hoarding of vaccines. if you were advising the prime — of vaccines. if you were advising the prime minister would you be supporting president biden's moved to support lifting patents protection and what your opinion on vaccine _ protection and what your opinion on vaccine ip? — protection and what your opinion on vaccine ip? l— protection and what your opinion on vaccine ip? ., �* ., protection and what your opinion on vaccine lp?_ vaccine ip? i don't have an opinion on it really- _ vaccine ip? i don't have an opinion on it really- i— vaccine ip? i don't have an opinion on it really. i strongly, _ vaccine ip? i don't have an opinion on it really. i strongly, strongly i on it really. i strongly, strongly suspect bill gates knows far more devoted president biden. if bill gates says this is a big mistake, on vaccine production, then my prior view would be almost definitely right and we should at the very least take his opinion extremely seriously. least take his opinion extremely seriousl . . ~ least take his opinion extremely seriousl . ., ~ , ., , least take his opinion extremely seriousl . . ~' , ., , . seriously. thank you very much indeed. craig _ seriously. thank you very much indeed. craig clarke. _ seriously. thank you very much indeed. craig clarke. thank- seriously. thank you very much j indeed. craig clarke. thank you seriously. thank you very much i indeed. craig clarke. thank you very much, indeed. craig clarke. thank you very much. jeremy- _ indeed. craig clarke. thank you very much, jeremy. you _ indeed. craig clarke. thank you very much, jeremy. you said _ indeed. craig clarke. thank you very much, jeremy. you said it _ indeed. craig clarke. thank you very much, jeremy. you said it was i much, jeremy. you said it was patrick— much, jeremy. you said it was patrick vallance was my idea to set ”p patrick vallance was my idea to set up the _ patrick vallance was my idea to set up the vaccine task force, is that right? _ up the vaccine task force, is that ri . ht? ., .,

up the vaccine task force, is that ri . ht? . . ~ up the vaccine task force, is that riuht? ., ., ~ ., ., right? he had the idea, like a lot of aood right? he had the idea, like a lot of good ideas. — right? he had the idea, like a lot of good ideas, people _ right? he had the idea, like a lot of good ideas, people were i right? he had the idea, like a lot i of good ideas, people were thinking about the same thing at the same time. i have a text from patrick vallance where he takes me directly on i think the 24th of march, i can confirm that if anyone think it's confirm that if anyone think its relevant, where he says explicitly to me, i want to set up a task force vaccines, outside the department of health, correct. some people were having parallel conversations with others at the same time and essentially, patrick and i both spoke to the cabinet secretary about it. ., ~ , ., . ., it. the deal with astrazeneca between oxford _ it. the deal with astrazeneca between oxford astrazeneca| it. the deal with astrazeneca i between oxford astrazeneca and it. the deal with astrazeneca - between oxford astrazeneca and the government, that was done before the vaccine _ government, that was done before the vaccine task— government, that was done before the vaccine task force was setup. do you recall— vaccine task force was setup. do you recall who was instrumental in bringing _ you recall who was instrumental in bringing that to bear? my you recall who was instrumental in bringing that to bear?— you recall who was instrumental in bringing that to bear? my memory is that patrick vallance _ bringing that to bear? my memory is that patrick vallance was _ that patrick vallance was instrumental in it. so that patrick vallance was instrumental in it.- that patrick vallance was instrumental in it. so he was involved in — instrumental in it. so he was involved in both _ instrumental in it. so he was involved in both of _ instrumental in it. so he was involved in both of those? i instrumental in it. so he was i involved in both of those? patrick, before he came _ involved in both of those? patrick, before he came to _ involved in both of those? patrick, before he came to government, i involved in both of those? patrick, i before he came to government, came to this private—sector, worked in the private sector on vaccines. he

knew a lot of key players. my conversations on the astrazeneca vaccine were with patrick and there was, at one point, a terrible fright that department of health was about to sign a contract, basically a duff contract on astrazeneca which would not have given us the rights to the vaccine or would have left them questionable. patrick intervened and sorted it out and make sure the contract worked out properly, thank goodness. so i think patrick deserves absolutely massive, enormous credit for his role in the vaccine task force. there is no doubt about it. i think as far as i'm aware he's the first senior official who came up with idea. the other people i know are talking about it were people outside of government. he was the first official to come up with the idea, he pushed it, he came to me and the cabinet secretary, he made the case to the pm and i think he deserves

enormous credit from the country for his role and. in enormous credit from the country for his role and-— his role and. in terms of lessons learned, that's _ his role and. in terms of lessons learned, that's a _ his role and. in terms of lessons learned, that's a strong - his role and. in terms of lessons| learned, that's a strong positive. you referred earlier i think to the idea that — you referred earlier i think to the idea that things may have been done perhaps— idea that things may have been done perhaps even quicker, i think you are referring to starting human challenge trials earlier. was that something that was contemplated? and tell us— something that was contemplated? and tell us about the history of that. to stress, — tell us about the history of that. to stress, this is not my idea. this is not some idea think i have come up is not some idea think i have come up with which is a good idea. it's not. essentially, the idea is that normally for any kind of vaccine, you have a whole testing process and you've got to take quite a lot of time to go through it all. because you've got to make sure, you have a disease killing one or 2% of the population, you have to make sure

you don't have a vaccine which killed more than that. however, for something like this, i think, from the point of view of overall human civilisation, how could we have done better? i think it's unarguable of what should have happened. the company is doing mrna vaccines basically created the vaccine itself in literally hours. injanuary. what should have happened is that governments like america and asked, should have gone to those companies and said, right, we're going to take your idea. we are now going to have what's called human challenge trials. we will pay, 5000, 10,000 people, that we will pay you to be injected with covid and you have control system where you're injected with covid, some of you get the

vaccine, some of you don't, everyone takes their chances and then if you die yourfamily will get takes their chances and then if you die your family will get a million quid or whatever, something that. that would have obviously been the best thing to do and if we had done that then, we could have hugely cut the time, i think, for doing this. we could definitely have got people vaccines by september. the reason i think it is an important thing, imagine we have another thing like this but not like covid, it's something like smallpox or ebola which kills one in three people. we have to be able to have a system that doesn't just go, have to be able to have a system that doesn'tjust go, oh well, tens of millions will die, nothing we can do, we got to go through the safety challenge process. we got to think now, this is why i'm so aggressive, i suppose is the word, about having lessons learned now. we've got to have a system in place where we go, holy lord, new ebola, right, mrna

companies, pfizer, where is the vaccine, 10,000 people, what's the price? night this vaccine, 10,000 people, what's the price? nigh— price? night this is one of the reasons we — price? night this is one of the reasons we are _ price? night this is one of the reasons we are conducting i price? night this is one of the | reasons we are conducting the inquiry— reasons we are conducting the inquiry to— reasons we are conducting the inquiry to get on with lessons that can be _ inquiry to get on with lessons that can be learned. just to understand it, can be learned. just to understand it. was— can be learned. just to understand it. was the — can be learned. just to understand it, was the fact that we didn't do that and — it, was the fact that we didn't do that and it's no criticism of the fact it — that and it's no criticism of the fact it was _ that and it's no criticism of the fact it was a remarkable bait pace, we can— fact it was a remarkable bait pace, we can on— fact it was a remarkable bait pace, we can on seen by regulation or a distaste _ we can on seen by regulation or a distaste for— we can on seen by regulation or a distaste for the risk involved in injecting — distaste for the risk involved in injecting healthy people with covid? ithink— injecting healthy people with covid? i think definitely regulatory issues that need to be sorted out, but i think fundamentally, like lots of things, groupthink mentality meant in general it was never properly explored. a few people suggested it and it was talked about... who and it was talked about... who suggested? — and it was talked about. .. who suggested? l— and it was talked about... who suggested? i can't _ and it was talked about... who suggested? i can't remember. and it was talked about... who i suggested? i can't remember now and it was talked about... who - suggested? i can't remember now who su: rested suggested? i can't remember now who suggested it- — suggested? i can't remember now who suggested it- l — suggested? i can't remember now who suggested it. i know— suggested? i can't remember now who suggested it. i know there _ suggested? i can't remember now who suggested it. i know there were - suggested it. i know there were conversations about it, i got e—mail

from some people, seeing should be do this? it was one of the many things i should have pushed harder and try to force conversation about and try to force conversation about and didn't do enough on. it was just, as far as i'm aware, just never really properly discussed but obviously should have been. abs, never really properly discussed but obviously should have been. a couple more areas- — obviously should have been. a couple more areas. you _ obviously should have been. a couple more areas. you have _ obviously should have been. a couple more areas. you have raised - obviously should have been. a couple | more areas. you have raised concerns that the _ more areas. you have raised concerns that the plan— more areas. you have raised concerns that the plan for vaccination or the adjustment of vaccines to new variants. _ adjustment of vaccines to new variants. i_ adjustment of vaccines to new variants, i think i sense from some of your— variants, i think i sense from some of your recent tweets that you think that is— of your recent tweets that you think that is not— of your recent tweets that you think that is not as sound as you think it should _ that is not as sound as you think it should be? — that is not as sound as you think it should be? have got that right? obviously are not in government any more but i talk to people who are involved with it and have just expressed concern to me that since kate bingham left, that the kind of normal entropy process of whitehall has got its fingers on the thinking and operations around this. and there has not been the kind of very aggressive approach that some inside

government want a bit thinking through the danger of variance and how to make sure that the vaccine task force is ahead of the game and the whole thing. i can't go into details because i'm not aware of them but i've had senior people expressed this concern to me. yes. is that personnel or organisation concerned? what's happening? is the forest _ concerned? what's happening? is the forest creeping back into the clearing? a forest creeping back into the clearinr? ~ , ., ., forest creeping back into the clearinr? �* , ., ., ., clearing? a combination of both, es. a clearing? a combination of both, yes- a shift _ clearing? a combination of both, yes- a shift in — clearing? a combination of both, yes. a shift in personnel - clearing? a combination of both, i yes. a shift in personnel catchment personnel as i understand it and about the concerns about organisational setup. you have s - oken organisational setup. you have spoken very — organisational setup. you have spoken very positively - organisational setup. you have spoken very positively about i organisational setup. you have i spoken very positively about kate bingham's role in this and others. she went — bingham's role in this and others. she went to a difficult time in the autumn, — she went to a difficult time in the autumn, in— she went to a difficult time in the autumn, in which she was being criticised — autumn, in which she was being criticised roundly by a lot of quarters _ criticised roundly by a lot of quarters. in some of that briefing was alleged to come from number ten. were you _ was alleged to come from number ten. were you aware of that at the time? did you _ were you aware of that at the time? did you pick— were you aware of that at the time? did you pick up this was a problem? i did you pick up this was a problem? i was _

did you pick up this was a problem? i was aware — did you pick up this was a problem? i was aware there was briefing, against her. i was told at the time by officials that they thought that most of this had come from dh but like most of these things, were never really got to the bottom of it. certainly, nobody who you could describe as being part of my core team obviously was involved with that. and i asked all of them, do you this is coming from? what's going on? the closest we got to is essentially, people in the system kind of feeling either their noses put out ofjoint orjealous about her profile or whatnot. lots of, one of the bad things that happened was lots of outsiders who came into volunteer to help, the same thing happened in terms of track and trace. people who dropped massively lucrative careers to help with test and trace got trashed impressed by parts of whitehall. which i thought was terrible. kate got cotton in that sort of crossfire.—

was terrible. kate got cotton in that sort of crossfire. you're not aware of any _ that sort of crossfire. you're not aware of any particular- that sort of crossfire. you're not aware of any particular briefing l aware of any particular briefing against — aware of any particular briefing against from number ten but conversely, there was radio silence from _ conversely, there was radio silence from numberten in conversely, there was radio silence from number ten in terms of defending her. my understanding was hit a threaten to goat on a broadcast round personally before there _ broadcast round personally before there was — broadcast round personally before there was a response from number ten. there was a response from number ten were — there was a response from number ten. were you aware of that? as there was a response from number ten. were you aware of that? final ten. were you aware of that? as i said earlier _ ten. were you aware of that? as i said earlier on, _ ten. were you aware of that? as i said earlier on, i _ ten. were you aware of that? as i said earlier on, i try _ ten. were you aware of that? as i said earlier on, i try to _ ten. were you aware of that? is i said earlier on, i try to stay ten. were you aware of that? sis i said earlier on, i try to stay as far away from kind of day—to—day media things. i was... i've got a vague recollection of a time when there was some kind of problem in her, i think she may have called pm directly or something and said,... essentially, i'm very unhappy about what's going on and i want some support from number ten but i was not part of that conversation and i don't really note happened, i'm afraid. , , . ., afraid. given the significance of her role in _ afraid. given the significance of her role in the _ afraid. given the significance of her role in the praise _ afraid. given the significance of her role in the praise you i afraid. given the significance of her role in the praise you have | her role in the praise you have quite — her role in the praise you have quite rightly lavished on her, did you not—

quite rightly lavished on her, did you not feel observing even as a reader— you not feel observing even as a reader of— you not feel observing even as a reader of the newspapers and blogs that, hold _ reader of the newspapers and blogs that, hold on, should be backing the work that— that, hold on, should be backing the work that she is doing? its that, hold on, should be backing the work that she is doing?— work that she is doing? as far as i am concerned _ work that she is doing? as far as i am concerned we _ work that she is doing? as far as i am concerned we obviously i work that she is doing? as far as i i am concerned we obviously supported the work of the vaccine task force... in the work of the vaccine task force... , ., ., �* ., �*, force... in terms of kate bingham's role in that? _ force... in terms of kate bingham's role in that? as _ force... in terms of kate bingham's role in that? as far _ force... in terms of kate bingham's role in that? as far as _ force... in terms of kate bingham's role in that? as far as i _ force... in terms of kate bingham's role in that? as far as i was - role in that? as far as i was concerned _ role in that? as far as i was concerned and _ role in that? as far as i was concerned and aware, i role in that? as far as i was i concerned and aware, number role in that? as far as i was - concerned and aware, number ten role in that? as far as i was _ concerned and aware, number ten was always supportive of the vaccine task force and of kate bingham. as i said, i tried to escape... i tried to keep out of the way of lots of conversations with the prime minister about briefing and leaks, that sort of thing. i'm speak to about it. all i basically remember is there was some briefing against her, i asked at a couple of meetings where do we think this is coming from, the best guess people at number ten was parts of whitehall had their noses put out ofjoint. i

also vaguely remember some sunday times story about her but i can't remember what that was. i don't think i can add anything very useful to the discussion.— to the discussion. finally, looking back and thinking _ to the discussion. finally, looking back and thinking of— to the discussion. finally, looking back and thinking of the - to the discussion. finally, looking back and thinking of the system, | back and thinking of the system, when _ back and thinking of the system, when you — back and thinking of the system, when you appeared before the science and technology committee, you talked about the _ and technology committee, you talked about the deal you did with the prime — about the deal you did with the prime minister when you came into his adviser— prime minister when you came into his adviser in downing street. he said there — his adviser in downing street. he said there were four components, want _ said there were four components, want to— said there were four components, want to get brexit done, second double — want to get brexit done, second double the science budget, third create _ double the science budget, third create a — double the science budget, third create a new research agency modelled on darpa, the fourth was to change _ modelled on darpa, the fourth was to change the _ modelled on darpa, the fourth was to change the way that whitehall works. again, _ change the way that whitehall works. again, you _ change the way that whitehall works. again, you have talked about this a lot in— again, you have talked about this a lot in your— again, you have talked about this a lot in your blog in 2019, talked about— lot in your blog in 2019, talked about turning government institutions responsible for decisions about billions of lives and trillions of dollars from hopeless to high performance. this was one _ hopeless to high performance. this was one of— hopeless to high performance. this was one of the things you thought about— was one of the things you thought about and — was one of the things you thought about and you brought into

whitehall. looking back, as we are and as— whitehall. looking back, as we are and as you — whitehall. looking back, as we are and as you can now, some of the failures— and as you can now, some of the failures have been organisational and operational. the fact that we had to— and operational. the fact that we had to stop testing in the community because _ had to stop testing in the community because we _ had to stop testing in the community because we didn't have enough tests. the fact— because we didn't have enough tests. the fact that we ran out of tests in september. why did something that was such— september. why did something that was such a _ september. why did something that was such a priority in which you were _ was such a priority in which you were part — was such a priority in which you were part of the deal for you being in downing — were part of the deal for you being in downing street, why was it not possible — in downing street, why was it not possible to have made good progress on that _ possible to have made good progress on that during the nine months that you were _ on that during the nine months that you were there from july to the spring — you were there from july to the spring of— you were there from july to the spring of 2020? well, gelana well, gela na 2019 well, gelana 2019 to the election was essentiallyjust well, gelana 2019 to the election was essentially just completely dominated by the constitutional crisis over brexit —— july 2019. we didn't have the bandwidth or the

real authority to start trying to change all sorts of things, in terms of whitehall. we had to be very focused on what it was that we try to change. so for example we did change the whole decision—making structure around the negotiations and around brexit. we did change. radically. and effectively. i started work on things like the procurement before, but it's also the case that the situation was so overwhelming, particularly after the prorogation and the supreme court judgment, that, you know, in september 2019i had officials come to me and say the system is creaking and very shortly senior people are just going to stop obeying orders

from this prime minister and regarded as not a legitimate government. so it was a really, really weird time. that wasn't an environment in which you could suddenly start saying, right, we are going to have all of these, you know, huge shifts to the basic wiring of downing street and whitehall. once we came back in january, i did begin a lot of this process, i talk to the cabinet secretary about making various changes to the civil service hr system, as i said, i started the whole process from the beginning of january to try to change the procurement system and other parts of it, and the data side. the problem was that we basically only had a kind of six weeks, back the first week ofjan, took over completely overtaking everything from kind of mid—february to change things. now, one of the things that did happen, which was relevant to

the september decision, was building what is known as the analytical private office in number ten, which i think will be a permanent institution, and will become a permanent part of how every subsequent prime minister works. i think no one in their right mind would possibly get rid of it, and everyone involved with it knows it has been a great success, so i think that shows, you know, if you'd read the media you would think this was all some huge row between me and all the officials and everyone hating it and screaming at each other, but the truth is pretty much all the good senior completely supported me on that and helped me do it, and it was a joint enterprise. it wasn't cummings against the system, all sensible people realise this was a huge gap in whitehall capabilities and we had to try and change it, both structurally and in terms of the specific skills. {lila both structurally and in terms of the specific skills.— both structurally and in terms of the specific skills. ok, thank you.

thank you. _ the specific skills. ok, thank you. thank you. mr — the specific skills. ok, thank you. thank you, mr cummings, - the specific skills. ok, thank you. thank you, mr cummings, and i l the specific skills. ok, thank you. i thank you, mr cummings, and i think yoursixth hour in thank you, mr cummings, and i think your sixth hour in front of the committee. it your sixth hour in front of the committee-— your sixth hour in front of the committee. , ., , committee. it feels like 45 minutes. you have talked _ committee. it feels like 45 minutes. you have talked about _ committee. it feels like 45 minutes. you have talked about the _ committee. it feels like 45 minutes. you have talked about the success i committee. it feels like 45 minutes. | you have talked about the success of the vaccine task force. are there lessons to be learned from that that can be applied across government? certainly, as i said, some of the corporate support of who is actually responsible, it was actually responsible, it was actually responsible for the team? jeremy knows, greg knows, the british state is set up, almost by design, to create a dysfunctional system, because you have to go out and potentially resign over things that have been done, and you cannot fire a single person, apart from your specific department. literally nothing that works well in the real world ever works like that. it's a completely crazy system. so you have a system in which responsibility is, by design, diffused, and no one knows who is really in charge. one of the key things of the vaccine

task force was we tried to just keep things very simple, and to have it, how do really good things were, we know who the bosses, it is her team, kate is going to pick the people, patrick will give scientific advice, and if it turns out that kate bingham is no good, we'll get rid of her like that and will put someone else who is responsible etc, etc. that was the whole reason for the approach. she picked the team, she did a good job in picking the team, and everyone knew that they were working for her. they weren't working for her. they weren't working for her. they weren't working for hancock, they weren't working for hancock, they weren't working for hancock, they weren't working for the permanent secretary in dh, they weren't working for the cabinet secretary, and that very, very simple principles are the core of the difference between well—run organisations and badly run organisations. so i think there are obvious lessons to learn. the problem is that in much of whitehall it kind of suits everybody to be in the spider—man meme of everyone

pointing at each other saying it is him, it is him, it is him, no, it is him, it is him, it is him, no, it is him, and changing that is, even after a disaster on the scale we have seen, it is going to be a really big job to have those conversations like, well, is the secretary of state actually in charge of this? can they really do that? the cabinet secretary, a lot of people have criticised marco said well, but marco said well was perfectly within his rights —— marco said well. to say to the prime minister matt hancock is the minister responsible, and he was correct. but we were also correct to say but so—and—so is in charge of this, and so—and—so is in charge of that, and i can't fire them. fundamentally the only person who can fathom is the cabinet secretary and that is only if the prime minister tells the cabinet secretary to fire them. the whole thing doesn't work if it is like that. moving on to covid vaccination,

success in that field, but can you tell us more about how those issues were overcome? in tell us more about how those issues were overcome?— tell us more about how those issues were overcome? in february, march, vanous were overcome? in february, march, various entities _ were overcome? in february, march, various entities and _ were overcome? in february, march, various entities and scientists - were overcome? in february, march, various entities and scientists came l various entities and scientists came to patrick vallance and said this is standard funding process, it takes a long time to get through but we are in this wartime situation, can you move some of those rules out of the way, speak to ukri etc etc. we did do, both patrick and i talked to ukri and other parts of the system and said, here is what the blocks are, can you try and basically create a fast track process so people like paul merce called up saying we can do blah blah blah, say right, how much, 10 million, down, how much, 20 million, done. it

certainly wasn't perfect but it did change quite dramatically february to april. change quite dramatically february to aril. �* change quite dramatically february toaril. �* , ., change quite dramatically february to aril. �* , ., to april. and the recovery trial has been respected — to april. and the recovery trial has been respected around _ to april. and the recovery trial has been respected around the - to april. and the recovery trial has been respected around the world, | been respected around the world, what do you put their success to? clear responsibility, great people in charge, there is a guy called jeremy ferrara who played a critical role in it. part of myjob is i know far more about the things that went wrong, if you know what i mean, than things that went right. if things were going right and there is saying that's ok, i had so many things to do with that i didn't really go into it, so the recovery trial is i don't really know very much about, because people just said it seems to be going well. i only got involved with jeremy ferrara p called me up and said ifit the jeremy ferrara p called me up and said i fit the following problem, otherwise ijust kind of let people get on with it. ok. otherwise ijust kind of let people get on with it— get on with it. ok. these are uk wide endeavours. _ get on with it. ok. these are uk wide endeavours. one _ get on with it. ok. these are uk wide endeavours. one has i get on with it. ok. these are uk wide endeavours. one has been | get on with it. ok. these are uk i wide endeavours. one has been the

disjointed approach on —— among the uk. what do you recall of discussions over using public health legislation, with comparison to civil contingencies legislation? again, my memory is pretty hazy, but fundamentally the cabinet secretary said the civil contingencies act is essentially useless. it was drafted backin essentially useless. it was drafted back in the 70s. it's had a few tweaks but it is completely unfit for its job. tweaks but it is completely unfit for itsjob. if tweaks but it is completely unfit for its job. if we try and rely on its powers, without a problem that various people who don't like it will go to court and we will suddenly be bogged down injudicial reviews at the time when we haven't got three weeks to go to court, even on a fast track process. so that was a big problem, and that's basically why we introduced the emergency coronavirus bill. again, one of the

reasons now why you guys have waited to have this enquiry is that upgrading the whole civil contingencies act is a critical thing. one very simple advantage —— example of that is the question around enforcement. one constant problem we have through the spring and summerand into problem we have through the spring and summer and into the winter was, well, the police say their powers are unclear, we can't do this, the courts won't uphold that, blah blah blah, and the emergency powers are unclear are various ways, so we kind of found ourselves in the situation of found ourselves in the situation of people arguing for greater and greater restrictions on certain law—abiding people because they felt that we couldn't actually enforce certain rules against non—law—abiding people, which was kind of a terrible thing to get into, so i think that's another thing. i'm afraid i'm not at all knowledgeable about that side of things but it think it is an important question. things but it think it is an imortant ruestion. �* , ., . important question. agyemang much. thank ou, important question. agyemang much. thank you. we — important question. agyemang much. thank you, we are _ important question. agyemang much. thank you, we are going _ important question. agyemang much. thank you, we are going to _ important question. agyemang much. thank you, we are going to adjourn, l thank you, we are going to adjourn, that concludes the section on the vaccines, — that concludes the section on the vaccines, we one more section that

is the _ vaccines, we one more section that is the run-up— vaccines, we one more section that is the run—up to the november lockdown— is the run—up to the november lockdown and we will reconvene at 3:05pm _ lockdown and we will reconvene at 3:05pm just to give people a slightly— 3:05pm just to give people a slightly longer break, so session adjourned. slightly longer break, so session ad'ourned. ~ slightly longer break, so session adjourned-— slightly longer break, so session ad'ourned. ~ . adjourned. well, there we have the third art adjourned. well, there we have the third part of — adjourned. well, there we have the third part of this _ adjourned. well, there we have the third part of this four-part - adjourned. well, there we have the third part of this four-part hearing l third part of this four—part hearing there, just adjourning for about just over 20 minutes. they have been talking since 9:30am this morning, now into the sixth hour of dominic cummings, the prime minister's former chief adviser, facing questions about the time that he was working at number ten, and the decisions that were made during the pandemic. he said that senior ministers, senior officials, senior advisers like me fell disastrously short of what the public expects during a crisis like this. we have also got a number of other revelations that he has come out with. he said that the government was wrong to claim it was heading towards a herd immunity policy,

letting the covid—19 virus spread through the population so that people developed a natural immunity before vaccines were available. he talked about the fact that the government was completely unprepared for what was coming down the track and ignored the signs of what was happening in other countries in february and march last year. nick eardleyjoins us now, our political correspondent, he has been listening intently to these hours and hours of testimony. and the two names that particularly get mentioned a lot are borisjohnson and the health secretary nick hancock. it boris johnson and the health secretary nick hancock. it has been an incredibly _ secretary nick hancock. it has been an incredibly strange _ secretary nick hancock. it has been an incredibly strange number i secretary nick hancock. it has been an incredibly strange number of i an incredibly strange number of hours when we have heard these key figures spilling the beans on what he thinks has gone wrong and you just listed some of the extraordinary claims that number ten

is going to spend the next few days trying to tackle now. you are also absolutely right that some of the most intense criticism, some of the most intense criticism, some of the most remarkable comments were kept for the health secretary, matt hancock. over the course of the last few hours, we have heard dominic cummings accuse him of not telling ministers and officials the truth, of getting some of the big decisions he had to make wrong, and saying that he thinks he should have been sacked for up to 15 to 20 reasons. really remarkable. i should say we have not had any response from the health secretary or his team yet, but we are trying to get one, but another moment that really struck me in the few hours we have seen so far was when dominic cummings basically cast a bit of a negative light on the whole upper echelon of government at the start of this crisis, when he said that was in his words crackers that he, dominic

cummings, was in such a senior position, but also that boris johnson was in such a senior position. and when you look through some of the claims he has made, this is really a devastating blow by blow account for number ten. huge questions over whether it was ready for this crisis, huge questions over whether it acted quickly enough, and it's worth pointing out potentially the most damaging stuff is still to come, because there are some in government to say, yes, look, there are a lot of things that took us by surprise in march, but one of the biggest criticisms we have heard from some around downing street is that when it came to the delays to the second lockdown, the decision not to lockdown in september and have that circuit breaker but eventually to do that later than that was one of the worst decisions taken, so although we have had six and a bit hour is already there are still some pretty explosive stuff to come. , _ .,

still some pretty explosive stuff to come. , ., ., come. let me “ust say that i asked if boris come. let me just say that i asked if boris johnson _ come. let me just say that i asked if boris johnson had _ come. let me just say that i asked if boris johnson had considered i if borisjohnson had considered sacking the health minister matt hancock last year, prime minister's spokesperson has said that the pm has always been working closely with mr hancock throughout, and believes that mr hancock has always told him the truth. so a little bit every action there from number ten. many people will question mr cummings's motivation for doing this. i mean, he has been called to give evidence, he has been called to give evidence, he has been called to give evidence, he has come and he has done that but of course this is the person who chose to travel north during that first lockdown. towards the end, he said, look, i know more about what went wrong than what went right, but there was a litany of what went wrong, in his view.— there was a litany of what went wrong, in his view. yes, to take the first art wrong, in his view. yes, to take the first part on — wrong, in his view. yes, to take the first part on dominic— wrong, in his view. yes, to take the first part on dominic cummings's i wrong, in his view. yes, to take the i first part on dominic cummings's own motivations, there are some around westminster who will accuse him of being driven by some sort of revenge, after he was moved out of

number ten late last year. there are also those who will say, well, if you look at his own record when he was in government, why didn't he do more? he did apologise for not doing well but then also admitted that that journey well but then also admitted that thatjourney he took to durham at the height of the stay at home rule, that that had had a bad impact on public trust in the government. i thought it was really interesting, just to go on a detail for a second, but his story on that has, let's say evolved. because you remember when he gave his first account back almost exactly a year ago in the rose garden in downing street, his case was that he was worried about childcare, so he and his wife took their child to durham to make sure they were close to family. he said in the evidence he has given today that security for the family at their london home and concerns they had about death threats were also a big factor in that decision, and it was something that had been previously discussed with the prime minister. so a slightly more nuanced take on that story than the one we

had last summer. dominic cummings admitting that by the way, and saying he kind wishes he had given the full picture. but i think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to what dominic cummings knew, and the reason that this is so important, whatever your personal opinions on dominic cummings, whatever some people in westminster think, and there are plenty people around here who don't like or trust him, this is the first full, blow by blow, public account we have had from someone who was around the table, from someone who was intricately involved in the decision—making process. we saw him this morning tweeting pictures of some of the mind maps that had been created in number ten in the days leading up to the first lockdown on the 23rd of march 2020. what's important about this is that dominic cummings is saying, here are a bunch of things i think the government got badly wrong, that it took too long to lockdown, that the herd immunity strategy was left on the table far

too late, that we took too long, the government that is, to come up with some of the big answers around care homes. these things are accusations that number ten is going to have to face over the next few days. this is the first time, as i say, we have had someone who was part of that decision—making process laying it out in public, and what is going to happen now as we will hear other accounts will stop this at the first one, i suspect there are many more to come. . .. one, i suspect there are many more to come. ., ~ ,., one, i suspect there are many more to come. . ~' ,., , one, i suspect there are many more to come. ., ~ y., , . to come. thank you very much, nick eardle in to come. thank you very much, nick eardley in westminster, _ to come. thank you very much, nick eardley in westminster, and - to come. thank you very much, nick| eardley in westminster, and dominic cummings is due to appear back at that committee at about 3:05pm, and we will rejoin it when they start. in other news now. two retired police officers and an ex—solicitor accused of altering police statements after the hillsborough disaster have been acquitted. they were accused of trying to minimise the blame on south yorkshire police in the aftermath of the 1989 disaster. mrjustice william davis ruled they had no case to answer. judith moritz reports.

hillsborough is a double tragedy. the disaster itself, 96 lives lost when the football terraces became overcrowded at the sheffield wednesday ground. and its aftermath, as fans were unjustly blamed for their own deaths. the families of those who died have spent 32 years fighting forjustice. # walk on, walk on...#. in 2016, they celebrated inquest verdicts, which found that those who died were unlawfully killed and the fans were not to blame. but now, there will be no convictions for an alleged police cover—up. although your mind is telling you it's going to be thrown i out, it still hurts. you know, 32 years now, and we've campaigned for all this time. - i'm angry at the system in this country that is so morally wrong. because to me, what has gone on today was a cover—up over a cover—up.

that's the way i look at it. the former bishop of liverpool, jamesjones, says it's important that victims of other disasters don't have the same long struggle as the hillsborough families. the result of the present proceedings leaves the families wondering about accountability, and especially in the aftermath of the disaster. my concern is the government should learn from the experiences that the families have endured over the past 32 years. former solicitor peter metcalfe, and former senior police officers donald denton and alan foster, were all charged with perverting the course ofjustice by amending officers' accounts of what happened during the disaster. the case against them has been dropped. this is the former headquarters of the south yorkshire police. back in 1989, officers met

here to organise the syp response to the disaster. the police statements ended up being used for three purposes. the public enquiry, the first set of inquests, and the original criminal investigation into hillsborough. the officers had written notes in their pocket books, before writing up their statements. many of the statements were later discovered to have been altered, and some negative comments about the police removed. professor phil scraton found them inside the reading room at the house of lords. i was overwhelmed. came back to liverpool, with those reviewed and altered statements in my bag. but i also realised that i was sitting on a whole range of material here that i had never envisaged. it was my worst fears had been realised, that it was endemic, that it was institutionalised. though it is not disputed that the statements were changed, the courts found it didn't amount to a crime. the judge accepted that the defendants didn't know the statements were going to be used

for anything other than the taylor enquiry, which was not a court of law. for many of the survivors and families of the 96 men, women and children who were unlawfully killed, it will feel like a devastating end to the fight for justice. judith moritz, bbc news. and judith also explained what the response had been from the defendants. lawyers representing the three defendants came outside court and said that they believed this proved there was no hillsborough cover—up, and that this prosecution was an enormous waste of public money. jonathan goldberg qc represents peter metcalf, the former south yorkshire police solicitor. mr; yorkshire police solicitor. my client is grateful that a high court judge _ client is grateful that a high court judge has— client is grateful that a high court judge has held he does not even have a case _ judge has held he does not even have a case to— judge has held he does not even have a case to answer, at the end of what is said _ a case to answer, at the end of what is said to _ a case to answer, at the end of what is said to be — a case to answer, at the end of what is said to be the longest and most expensive — is said to be the longest and most expensive series of criminal

investigations ever mounted in britain — investigations ever mounted in britain. apparently costing into the hundreds— britain. apparently costing into the hundreds of millions of pounds. hillsborough is probably the most investigated disaster in british history — investigated disaster in british history. that money would have been better— history. that money would have been better spent on building new hospitals or schools, perhaps in liverpool — hospitals or schools, perhaps in liverpool. my client is acutely sad about _ liverpool. my client is acutely sad about the — liverpool. my client is acutely sad about the suffering of the bereaved families _ about the suffering of the bereaved families. the about the suffering of the bereaved families. ., .,, . ., families. the crown prosecution service has _ families. the crown prosecution service has defended _ families. the crown prosecution service has defended its - families. the crown prosecution | service has defended its decision families. the crown prosecution i service has defended its decision to bring this trial, saying that it was right for a jury to hear the evidence, and has said its decision not to appeal is something it has reached after long consideration. the cps has also pointed the fact that people may say they find it surprising there is no legal duty on a public authority like the police to stop them from withholding information to a public enquiry, and they say that that is something which should be looked at with scrutiny. that's also, by the way, something which campaigners want now to see a change in the law. they

wanted to be called the hillsborough law. mike rainford is the lawyer representing former police officer donald denton — he spoke outside court earlier. 0f of the trial, which came to an end 'ust of the trial, which came to an end just now. — of the trial, which came to an end just now, with not guilty verdicts for all— just now, with not guilty verdicts for all defendants should never have taken _ for all defendants should never have taken place, at all. three men, including — taken place, at all. three men, including our 83—year—old client, have _ including our 83—year—old client, have finally been cleared, after years _ have finally been cleared, after years of— have finally been cleared, after years of lies, half—truths, myths, rumours. — years of lies, half—truths, myths, rumours, often repeated in the media with no— rumours, often repeated in the media with no critical analysis or research _ with no critical analysis or research. sadly, vaio pc and the cps failed _ research. sadly, vaio pc and the cps failed in _ research. sadly, vaio pc and the cps failed in their duties to apply a higher— failed in their duties to apply a higher standard of analysis of the evidence — higher standard of analysis of the evidence in making the decision to bring _ evidence in making the decision to bring these charges over three years

a-o. paul harris, solicitor for former police officer alan foster, read a short statement on his behalf: his sympathy today remains as it always _ his sympathy today remains as it always has — his sympathy today remains as it always has with _ his sympathy today remains as it always has with the _ his sympathy today remains as it always has with the families i his sympathy today remains as it always has with the families of. always has with the families of those — always has with the families of those who— always has with the families of those who lost _ always has with the families of those who lost their _ always has with the families of those who lost their lives i always has with the families of those who lost their lives on i always has with the families of. those who lost their lives on 15th april— those who lost their lives on 15th april 1989 — those who lost their lives on 15th april 1989 in _ those who lost their lives on 15th april 1989 in the _ those who lost their lives on 15th april 1989 in the hillsborough i april 1989 in the hillsborough tragedy _ april1989 in the hillsborough tragedy such— april 1989 in the hillsborough tragedy. such sympathy, i april 1989 in the hillsborough i tragedy. such sympathy, though, cannot_ tragedy. such sympathy, though, cannot be — tragedy. such sympathy, though, cannot be extended _ tragedy. such sympathy, though, cannot be extended to _ tragedy. such sympathy, though, cannot be extended to the - tragedy. such sympathy, though, cannot be extended to the ipcc, i tragedy. such sympathy, though, i cannot be extended to the ipcc, now the i opc. _ cannot be extended to the ipcc, now the i opc. who— cannot be extended to the ipcc, now the i opc, who pursued _ cannot be extended to the ipcc, now the i opc, who pursued a _ cannot be extended to the ipcc, now the i opc, who pursued a man, - cannot be extended to the ipcc, now the i opc, who pursued a man, now| the i opc, who pursued a man, now aged _ the i opc, who pursued a man, now aged 75, _ the i opc, who pursued a man, now aged 75, of— the i opc, who pursued a man, now aged 75, of good _ the i opc, who pursued a man, now aged 75, of good character, - the i opc, who pursued a man, now aged 75, of good character, with - aged 75, of good character, with weak— aged 75, of good character, with weak evidence, _ aged 75, of good character, with weak evidence, designed - aged 75, of good character, with weak evidence, designed to - aged 75, of good character, with weak evidence, designed to fit l aged 75, of good character, with weak evidence, designed to fit a predetermined _ weak evidence, designed to fit a predetermined narrative. - weak evidence, designed to fit a predetermined narrative. this. predetermined narrative. this narrative, _ predetermined narrative. this narrative, of— predetermined narrative. this narrative, of an _ predetermined narrative. this narrative, of an alleged - predetermined narrative. this- narrative, of an alleged cover—up, when _ narrative, of an alleged cover—up, when every— narrative, of an alleged cover—up, when every document _ narrative, of an alleged cover—up, when every document was - narrative, of an alleged cover—up, - when every document was meticulously preserved _ when every document was meticulously preserved and _ when every document was meticulously preserved and maintained, _ when every document was meticulously preserved and maintained, was- when every document was meticulously preserved and maintained, was not- preserved and maintained, was not borne _ preserved and maintained, was not borne out _ preserved and maintained, was not borne out by— preserved and maintained, was not borne out by the _ preserved and maintained, was not borne out by the evidence. - two men and three teenagers have been arrested on suspicion

of attempted murder of activist sasha johnson in south london. the 27—year—old was shot in the head at a party in peckham on sunday and has been in a critical condition. msjohnson, who works in community activism and community support, has been a leading figure in the black lives matter movement in the uk. the foreign secretary dominic raab has been visiting the middle east, as part of a trip aimed at upholding the ceasefire between the israel's military and hamas. dominic raab held talks with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and they discussed what they deescribed as the importance of a durable ceasefire. mr raab also met the palestinian president mahmoud abbas in ramallah, where he reaffirmed the uk's support for a two—state solution. here he is speaking after those meetings. we've been talking to both interlocutors on both sides, from prime minister netanyahu, i have just met president at bass, looking at the ways the united kingdom can start turning betsy saina into a more positive track, to continue to

improve the and create a positive track towards peace dialogue. when track towards peace dialogue. when it comes to support _ track towards peace dialogue. when it comes to support for _ track towards peace dialogue. when it comes to support for the - it comes to support for the palestinians, _ it comes to support for the palestinians, how- it comes to support for the palestinians, how is - it comes to support for the palestinians, how is the i it comes to support for the | palestinians, how is the uk it comes to support for the - palestinians, how is the uk planning to hope _ palestinians, how is the uk planning to hope and — palestinians, how is the uk planning to hope and how— palestinians, how is the uk planning to hope and how do— palestinians, how is the uk planning to hope and how do you _ palestinians, how is the uk planning to hope and how do you make - palestinians, how is the uk planning to hope and how do you make sure. to hope and how do you make sure that any— to hope and how do you make sure that any help — to hope and how do you make sure that any help you _ to hope and how do you make sure that any help you give _ to hope and how do you make sure that any help you give does - to hope and how do you make sure that any help you give does not - that any help you give does not benefit — that any help you give does not benefit hamas? _ that any help you give does not benefit hamas? ls _ that any help you give does not benefit hamas? is a _ that any help you give does not benefit hamas?_ that any help you give does not benefit hamas? , . . ., benefit hamas? is a dilemma we have been grappling — benefit hamas? is a dilemma we have been grappling with — benefit hamas? is a dilemma we have been grappling with for— benefit hamas? is a dilemma we have been grappling with for many - benefit hamas? is a dilemma we have been grappling with for many years. . been grappling with for many years. we have provided an emergency package of support for the palestinians, over £3 million, but we honestly need to work very carefully with the palestinian authority and of course with our israeli partners to make sure the controls in the governance is there to make sure it goes who need it, the palestinian people, to alleviate their plight and does not drift or is decanted into the pockets of hamas. that is absolutely crucially important. it is important for the palestinians, it is also important for the israelis, it is something where they ought to be a win—win here. where they ought to be a win-win here. ., ., ., ., “ where they ought to be a win-win here. ., . ., ., ,, . where they ought to be a win-win here. ., . ., ., ~ . . here. time for a look at the weather now with stav- _ after today, it looks like the

weather wants to settle down, thanks to high pressure building on, we should see increasing amounts of sunshine and it will feel warmer, certainly warmer than what may has been so far. we will start to see the condition is improving through thursday and into friday for many of us. the heavy, thundery showers which we have had today across parts of scotland and northern england will fizzle out overnight. most places will be dry in fact, a legacy of cloud across northern and eastern areas come a bit of mist and fog here and there, temperatures no lower than 47 degrees. tomorrow, stats a rather grey across northern and eastern areas but should turn —— for to 7 degrees. then a much drier day, because the broad, the odd shower around to stop this new weather front brings thickening cloud across the west of the uk later in the day and we could see temperatures top 20 degrees across the sunny spots of the south, 18 or 19 in the central belt of scotland. we can see a little bit of rain across the west on friday. otherwise, into the bank holiday week it looks fine and settled for of us.

this is bbc news. the headlines... dominic cummings gives explosive evidence to parliament, claiming the government's initial response to the pandemic was inadequate and complacent, with terrible consequences. the truth is that senior ministers, senior officials, senior advisers like me, fell disastrously short of the standards that the public has a right to expect. in february, the prime minister regarded this as just a scare story. he regarded, he described it as the new swine flu. his evidence led to angry clashes in the commons at prime minister's questions. this morning, the prime minister's former adviser said, when the public needed us most of the government failed. does the prime minister agree with that?

we have at every stage tried to minimise loss of life, - save lives, protect the nhs, and we followed the best. scientific advice that we can. three men have been acquitted, as the judge rules there's no case to answer in the hillsborough disaster trial. good afternoon and welcome to bbc news. in an incendiary appearance in front of mps, dominic cummings, the prime minister's former top adviser, has given a damning account of the way the government handled the early stages of the coronavirus crisis, saying people had died unnecessarily because of its failings. mr cummings said the government had failed the public when they needed it most, and he apologised for his own part in.

assessing the government's performance, he said, "there's no doubt at all that many senior people performed far, far disastrously below the standards which the country has a right to expect." he said, "in february, the prime minister regarded this as just a scare story, he described it as the new swine flu." on the government's covid preparations in early 2020 he said, "there wasn't any plan for shielding, there wasn't even a helpline for shielding, there wasn't any plan for financial incentives, there wasn't any plan for almost anything in any kind of detail at all." on the performance of health secretary matt hancock, "i think the secretary of state for health should've been fired for at least 15, 20 things, including lying to everybody on multiple occasions in meeting after meeting in the cabinet room and publicly. " and mr cummings said he regretted the account he gave of his trip to the north—east of england during the first lockdown. he said he stood by his visit to county durham because his family faced security threats, and that he was extremely sorry for not telling the whole story. nick eardley was watching

a day of vivid testimony. untiljust a few months ago, dominic cummings was the prime minister's key adviser. around the downing street table when crucial pandemic decisions were made. good morning and thank you for appearing. now, he is accusing the government of a list of serious failures in its handling of the crisis. the truth is that senior ministers, senior officials, senior advisers like me, fell disastrously short of the standards the public has a right to expect of its government in a crisis like this. when the public needed us most, the government failed, and i would like to say to all of the families of those who died unnecessarily how sorry i am for the mistakes that were made and for my own mistakes at that. early last year, the world

was grappling with the growing covid emergency, but it is claimed that ministers here underestimated what was coming and acted too slowly. the government itself at numberten... ..was not operating on a war footing in february on this, in any way, shape or form. the prime minister, he said, saw it as a scare story. he described it as the new swine flu. did you tell him it wasn't? certainly, but the view of various officials inside number ten was if we have the prime minister chairing covid meetings and he tells everybody it is swine flu, "don't worry about it, i will get chris witty to inject me live on air with coronavirus, so everyone will realise it's nothing to be frightened of," that would not help serious planning. as the crisis developed,

mr cummings said he urged the prime minister to tell people to stay at home from the 12th of march. it was more than 12 days later lockdown was introduced. dominic cummings painted a picture of a chaotic downing street. it sounds so surreal it couldn't possibly be true. that day, the times had run a huge story had run a huge story about the prime minister and his girlfriend, and their dog, and the prime minister's girlfriend was going completely crackers about this story and demanding the press office deal with that. so we had this sort of completely insane situation in which part of the building was saying "are we going to bomb iraq?" part of the building was arguing about whether or not we would do quarantine or not, the prime minister has his girlfriend going crackers about something completely trivial. in his long list of explosive claims, dominic cummings said the health secretary should have been sacked, accusing him of not telling the truth, including over the government's early strategy.

are you worried about dominic i cummings giving evidence today? i think the secretary of state for health should have been fired for at least 15, 20 things, including lying to everybody on multiple occasions in meeting after meeting in the cabinet room and publicly. there was criticism of others. it is completely crackers that someone like me should have been in there, same as its cracker borisjohnson should be in there. he said some officials had been brilliant, but had this withering conclusion. the problem in this crisis was very much a lions led by donkeys. dominic cummings is no stranger to controversy. his lockdown trip to durham infuriated many in and outside westminster. the list of accusations he has made, as someone the list of accusations he has made, as someone who was in the room, simply cannot be ignored. that the government was ill—equipped

to deal with the crisis. that it acted too slowly. and that that had devastating consequences. did the government fall disastrously short, prime minister? _ as his former aide continued to give evidence, the prime minister faced the commons. prime minister borisjohnson. the handling of this pandemic has been one of the most difficult things this country has had to do for a very long time. none of the decisions have been easy. to go into a lockdown is a dramatic thing for a country. to deal with a pandemic on this scale has been appallingly difficult. we have at every stage tried to minimise loss of life, to save lives, protect the nhs, and we followed the best scientific advice we can, mr speaker. does the prime minister accept the central allegation allegation that his inaction led to needless death? no, mr speaker, and all of those matters will be reviewed in the course of the public inquiry that i have announced...

but serious accusations are being made now, about borisjohnson and his government. dominic cummings left downing street months ago that he still has plenty to say. nick eardleyjoins me now. scathing nick eardleyjoins me now. comments about the pi minister, scathing comments about the prime minister, one that sticks out saying that boris johnson just minister, one that sticks out saying that borisjohnson just gets up, read the papers, said, right what are they doing today? then cannons around. how damaging is this going to be for the prime minister and health secretary? he gets a lot of mentions too. he health secretary? he gets a lot of mentions too.— health secretary? he gets a lot of mentions too. ., , a, , mentions too. he does, indeed. many --eole at mentions too. he does, indeed. many people at westminster _ mentions too. he does, indeed. many people at westminster don't - mentions too. he does, indeed. many people at westminster don't like - people at westminster don't like dominic cummings, had deep reservations about him long before today. it's pretty hard to ignore what is the first full comprehensive public account from someone who was in the room when some of these big decisions were being made and one of

the comments that really struck me in the last hour from dominic cummings was when he said that tens of thousands of people died who didn't need to die. he has a pretty scathing list of what he sees as government failures that led to that point. he thinks that number ten was too slow in introducing lockdown. he thinks the health secretary didn't tell the truth to other ministers and two officials should have been sacked from his job a result. and two officials should have been sacked from hisjob a result. mr cummings said he thinks the idea that a protective ring was put around care homes at the start of the pandemic is simply nonsense. we've had this release giving account of what happened at the start of the pandemic which number ten is going to face huge questions overin ten is going to face huge questions over in the next few days but potentially, what is still to come this afternoon, what we are about to get back to with mr cummings, could bejust as, if get back to with mr cummings, could be just as, if not more damaging for

the government because it will be about the second lockdown, later in the year when the argument has been made that the government should have learned more lessons and been in a better place to react to some of the concerning data that was coming out about the increase in the number of cases after summer. over the next few hours, this could get even harderfor few hours, this could get even harder for the government. let’s few hours, this could get even harder for the government. let's go back to the — harder for the government. let's go back to the hearing. _ harder for the government. let's go back to the hearing. they _ harder for the government. let's go back to the hearing. they have - harder for the government. let's go back to the hearing. they have just| back to the hearing. they have just reconvened in westminster. we can listen in. . , , reconvened in westminster. we can listen in. . ,, , ., reconvened in westminster. we can listen in. , . _ listen in. perhaps i can start by 'ust listen in. perhaps i can start by just asking _ listen in. perhaps i can start by just asking mr _ listen in. perhaps i can start by just asking mr cummings - listen in. perhaps i can start by just asking mr cummingsjust l listen in. perhaps i can start by| just asking mr cummingsjust to listen in. perhaps i can start by - just asking mr cummingsjust to give just asking mr cummings just to give us a brief— just asking mr cummings just to give us a brief summary of what were the key decisions taken during the autumn? _ key decisions taken during the autumn? ~ , , .,, autumn? well, i guess the most significant _ autumn? well, i guess the most significant wear _ autumn? well, i guess the most significant wear that _ autumn? well, i guess the most - significant wear that mid-september, significant wear that mid—september, sage and patrick vallance advised that we take rapid action and do

some kind of short, sharp burst. because... of where the numbers were going. the prime minister decided not to do that. we then went round the houses on that decision. and then ended up doing, on the 31st of october. in the meantime, the government kind of careered around all over the shop, trying to do these local lockdowns and... and other things. these local lockdowns and... and otherthings. but these local lockdowns and... and other things. but in the end, it didn't work. is it useful if i spell out what the actual meetings were and when so that you can... that would be — and when so that you can. .. that would be helpful— and when so that you can... that would be helpful and _ and when so that you can... that would be helpful and thenjeremy hunt ism — would be helpful and then jeremy hunt is... ,, . , . hunt is... essentially, what happened _ hunt is... essentially, what happened is _ hunt is... essentially, what happened is in _ hunt is... essentially, what happened is in the - hunt is... essentially, what

happened is in the week . hunt is... essentially, what happened is in the week of| hunt is... essentially, what - happened is in the week of the. .. happened is in the week of the... sought about the of september, is it the 18th as the friday? i think so. essentially, the... patrick vallance and chris whitty came to number ten and chris whitty came to number ten and they said, we aren't sage think that we need to consider a two—week or possibly longer locked—in. —— they said we and sage. bear in mind, in the summer when we were discussing the reopening plan, i asked chris whitty, what you think the chances are that we will have the chances are that we will have the r number over one again in september and back problems? he said, "i think before the schools go back, probably our number will be below one but it's over 50% likely

that it will be over one if it brings the schools back in september." many of us had said in the summer to the prime minister, do not tell everyone get back to work. don't do this will everyone go back to work thing and covid is over and what not. but at that to work thing and covid is over and whatnot. but at that point, his main concern was about the economy. so overjuly, august, obviously with the whole impetus of the government was to try and pretend that we could get back to normal. 17th, patrick and chris come to number ten and say we should look down. i see to the prime minister, the lesson of the first wave was the earlier the better when dealing with exponentially like this." then on the friday, there was a long discussion of it with the pm, and

essentially at the end of that, he decided we're not going to do anything. sol decided we're not going to do anything. so i said, listen, we all lived through the march horror. i got a dreadful feeling about this that we are making the same mistake. i said, before you make a final decision, i want to do something that sounds a bit weird. i want to have another meeting on monday, where we imagine the meeting is the end of october. and we'll have all the documents presented to you, i'm talking about monday the 21st i think it is. the meeting itself will be on monday the 21st but we will set it in the future at the end of october and we will look at a date with what is our best guess that this is what the situation is going to be like at the end of october.

and topped through all of that. because if you're going to look at that then and decide to lock down, we should do it now, that's the whole lesson of march. the cabinets actresses i completely agree, that's actresses i completely agree, that's a very good idea, we'll get the data team on it, etc. the data team which inventory, march, didn't really exist. it was then more by now, it was a really good team of officials. the number ten. they crunch the data with sage staff and others over that weekend. on the sunday evening, there was a meeting with a combination of sage scientists and some external people. by scientists and some external people. by this point, unfortunately, the prime minister was listening to various people who were saying things like there is already herd immunity in the population, there will not be any second wave etc. we

have this meeting in the cabinet room, sunday evening. patrick and chris gave their view, a guy called hennigan and a woman from oxford called professor gupta, ithink hennigan and a woman from oxford called professor gupta, i think it was, gave the kind of don't lockdown view. john edmonds said, who is on sage, surely we're going to learn the lessons of march? here is what the lessons of march? here is what the data is going to you're not going to, the only logic of not doing a lockdown then well be that you are not going to do it at all. there is no way going to make a decision. do it now otherwise it will be worse. the prime minister said i'm not persuaded of that. we then had a meeting where the

hypothetical meeting of the future and there is a brilliant young woman who we brought in from outside whitehall who presented all of this data. we said to the prime minister, here is the stuff... remember, there is a huge contrast at this point to what i was describing in march. in march, no testing data, no proper data system, scribbling things on the whiteboard with an iphone. by now, we have a completely professional team, really on it, they have the testing data, the nhs data, it's really clear. from some of our point of view, it's completely obvious that in this hypothetical point, 56 weeks hence, when we're looking at, —— five or six weeks. we are at the point where you're going to have to act now or you're going to have to act now or you cross the tripwire whereby the nhs is going to get smashed again. that's what the data is showing us.

the prime minister wasn't persuaded. about this. i said to him, the whole lesson of what happened before is that by delaying, the lockdown came later, it had to be more severe, it had to last longer, the economic disruption is even worse anyway, and we will have killed god knows how many thousands of people in the meantime who would not have caught covid if we had acted. surely we have to learn the lessons. the prime minister decided now and said basically we've just minister decided now and said basically we'vejust got minister decided now and said basically we've just got to hit and hope. basically we've 'ust got to hit and ho e. �* , basically we've 'ust got to hit and ho e, �* , ., basically we've 'ust got to hit and hoe. �*, ., ., hope. let's posit that point and we will no to hope. let's posit that point and we will go to some — hope. let's posit that point and we will go to some detail. _ hope. let's posit that point and we will go to some detail. starting - will go to some detail. starting with carol. will go to some detail. starting with carol-— will go to some detail. starting with carol. . ,, , ., . . ~ with carol. thank you, chair. mr cummings. _ with carol. thank you, chair. mr cummings. you _ with carol. thank you, chair. mr cummings, you said _ with carol. thank you, chair. mr cummings, you said earlier - with carol. thank you, chair. mr cummings, you said earlier in l with carol. thank you, chair. mr i cummings, you said earlier in your evidence today that you should have been hitting the panic button back in february, march. we are now talking september, we have learned

lots of lessons as you say, we have a handle on things. were you hitting the panic button in september? yes. was a prime — the panic button in september? yes. was a prime minister _ the panic button in september? yes. was a prime minister anywhere of how seriously you were taking things at that point? seriously you were taking things at that oint? . .. seriously you were taking things at that oint? , ., ., that point? yes, at that point, as i exlained that point? yes, at that point, as i explained before, _ that point? yes, at that point, as i explained before, in _ that point? yes, at that point, as i explained before, in fabric, - that point? yes, at that point, as i| explained before, in fabric, march, explained before, infabric, march, i was very frightened by hitting the panic button because what if i won the people that the official plan is wrong and the data was completed hopeless, by this time, it was a completely different situation. all credible serious people and i opinion were saying essentially the same thing. i was very, very clear with him that that time. so same thing. i was very, very clear with him that that time.— same thing. i was very, very clear with him that that time. so you are ”ressin with him that that time. so you are pressing for — with him that that time. so you are pressing for a _ with him that that time. so you are pressing for a circuit _ with him that that time. so you are pressing for a circuit breaker- pressing for a circuit breaker lockdown? in september? yes. so if the prime minister was not persuaded, and your words, of the importance of this, whose advice was he taking? he importance of this, whose advice was he takina? �* importance of this, whose advice was he takin: ? .. �* ., ~ importance of this, whose advice was he takin: ? .. �* ., ,, ., , he taking? he wasn't taking any advice, he taking? he wasn't taking any advice. he _ he taking? he wasn't taking any advice, he was _

he taking? he wasn't taking any advice, he was making - he taking? he wasn't taking any advice, he was making his - he taking? he wasn't taking any advice, he was making his ownl advice, he was making his own decisions, ignoring the advice. 50 decisions, ignoring the advice. sr did his cabinet agree with his decisions?— did his cabinet agree with his decisions? .. , ., , ., decisions? the cabinet was not involved or _ decisions? the cabinet was not involved or asked. _ decisions? the cabinet was not involved or asked. did - decisions? the cabinet was not involved or asked. did you - decisions? the cabinet was not| involved or asked. did you hear an hint involved or asked. did you hear anything from _ involved or asked. did you hear anything from cabinet - involved or asked. did you hear| anything from cabinet members involved or asked. did you hear - anything from cabinet members about these decisions?— these decisions? there were different views _ these decisions? there were different views also - these decisions? there were different views also i - these decisions? there were different views also i have i these decisions? there were i different views also i have been very critical of matt hancock but he agreed with me in september about acting then. {lilia agreed with me in september about actin: then. .. agreed with me in september about acting then._ there - agreed with me in september about acting then._ there was l acting then. 0k, and... there was not any formal... _ acting then. 0k, and... there was not any formal... cabinet - acting then. 0k, and... there was not any formal... cabinet meeting acting then. 0k, and... there was i not any formal... cabinet meeting to discuss it or if it was it was a token exercise, not a real discussion that actually affected... so these decisions were entirely the prime minister's? fin so these decisions were entirely the prime minister's?— so these decisions were entirely the prime minister's? on the september lockdown, correct. _ prime minister's? on the september lockdown, correct. pack— prime minister's? on the september lockdown, correct. pack in _ lockdown, correct. pack in september. _ lockdown, correct. pack in september, they - lockdown, correct. pack in september, they were - lockdown, correct. pack in | september, they were told lockdown, correct. pack in i september, they were told of lockdown, correct. pack in - september, they were told of the importance of a lockdown,... i was importance of a lockdown,... i was there, importance of a lockdown,... i was there. yes- — importance of a lockdown,... i was there. yes- you — importance of a lockdown,... i was there, yes. you were _ importance of a lockdown,... i was there, yes. you were there, - importance of a lockdown,... i was there, yes. you were there, ok, . importance of a lockdown,... i was i

there, yes. you were there, ok, what was the chancellor's _ there, yes. you were there, ok, what was the chancellor's view _ there, yes. you were there, ok, what was the chancellor's view on - there, yes. you were there, ok, what was the chancellor's view on this? - was the chancellor's view on this? the chancellor's view was the department of health who want to do this have no plan. there is no plan for what to do. we have just gone through a whole thing will be had these arguments injune, july, and some people like tom said don't to get back to work, don'tjust try to go think about the economy, but he decides to do it. and now the department of health are setting the panic button again and saying we have to stop for two weeks and then tell people to go back to work again? and then two weeks later say the opposite? there is no plan, no coherence to anything. so knowing the department — coherence to anything. so knowing the department of— coherence to anything. so knowing the department of health - coherence to anything. so knowing the department of health was - coherence to anything. so knowing i the department of health was chaotic in its approach, was the economic argument, where the outweighing everything else at this point? for the prime minister, yes. and - everything else at this point? for. the prime minister, yes. and there was talk certainly _ the prime minister, yes. and there was talk certainly in _ the prime minister, yes. and there was talk certainly in the _ the prime minister, yes. and there was talk certainly in the scottish i was talk certainly in the scottish government were pushing hard,

following that sage advice, for extension of the furlough scheme. why was that not discussed more seriously at that point? because it was only eventually extended at the very last minute. i was only eventually extended at the very last minute.— very last minute. i can't remember the kind of— very last minute. i can't remember the kind of time _ very last minute. i can't remember the kind of time details _ very last minute. i can't remember the kind of time details on - very last minute. i can't remember the kind of time details on timing i the kind of time details on timing with that i'm afraid, but i know all the way along, rishi sunak and his team took the issue about furlough, they came up with the idea, not us at number ten, they came up with the idea to do it and wants the prime minister said that each stage i'm going to do x and i have made a decision, the chancellor will always extremely competently and extremely ably and effectively rode in and said, right, here's the economic package to go along with it and he made it happen. flan package to go along with it and he made it happen-— package to go along with it and he made it happen. can you think of a dive different _ made it happen. can you think of a dive different prime _ made it happen. can you think of a dive different prime minister- made it happen. can you think of a dive different prime minister being in numberten, dive different prime minister being in number ten, things would have been managed differently? undoubtedly, yes. has been managed differently? undoubtedl , es. , . undoubtedly, yes. has predecessors? you mean what _

undoubtedly, yes. has predecessors? you mean what do _ undoubtedly, yes. has predecessors? you mean what do i _ undoubtedly, yes. has predecessors? you mean what do i think— undoubtedly, yes. has predecessors? you mean what do i think each - undoubtedly, yes. has predecessors? you mean what do i think each of- undoubtedly, yes. has predecessors? you mean what do i think each of his l you mean what do i think each of his predecessors would have done in the situation? . predecessors would have done in the situation? , ., , situation? yes, if it had been david cameron, theresa _ situation? yes, if it had been david cameron, theresa may. _ situation? yes, if it had been david cameron, theresa may. its - cameron, theresa may. its hypothetical, god only knows what each of them would do, but i would say, if you took anybody at random from the top 1% competent people in this country, and presented them with the situation, they would have behaved differently to how the prime minister behaved. so behaved differently to how the prime minister behaved. 50 if behaved differently to how the prime minister behaved.— minister behaved. so if we're describing — minister behaved. so if we're describing his _ minister behaved. so if we're describing his behaviour - minister behaved. so if we're describing his behaviour at i minister behaved. so if we're l describing his behaviour at that point, was driven byarrogance? complacency? was it something more sinister? he complacency? was it something more sinister? . �* ~ sinister? he 'ust didn't, ithink there is a— sinister? hejust didn't, ithink there is a great _ sinister? hejust didn't, i think. there is a great misunderstanding people have that because it nearly killed him, therefore he must have taken it seriously. but in fact, after the first lockdown, his view was, he was cross with me and others in what he regarded as basically pushing him into the first lockdown. his argument after that happened was literally, quote" i should have kept

the beaches open." that's what he said on many occasions. he didn't think injuly or september, thank goodness we did the first lockdown it was obviously the right thing to do etc. his argument was then we should not have done the first lockdown and i'm not to make the same mistake again. that lockdown and i'm not to make the same mistake again.— lockdown and i'm not to make the same mistake again. that does sound like arrogance- _ same mistake again. that does sound like arrogance. i— same mistake again. that does sound like arrogance. i don't _ same mistake again. that does sound like arrogance. i don't know _ same mistake again. that does sound like arrogance. i don't know if - like arrogance. i don't know if arrogance _ like arrogance. i don't know if arrogance is _ like arrogance. i don't know if arrogance is the _ like arrogance. i don't know if arrogance is the right - like arrogance. i don't know if arrogance is the right thing, l like arrogance. i don't know if l arrogance is the right thing, it's just he... as i said in the earlier session, the prime minister took the view injanuary, february, that economic harm caused by action against covid was going to be more damaging to the country than covid. and we could not persuade him that if basically took the view of let it rip and not worry about covid, you would get notjust all the health disasters but also a huge economic disasters but also a huge economic disaster because people faced with not having any health system which

is what we were faced with in march, or what we would have been faced with if we had not finally put the brakes on in october, people are going to lock themselves down out of terror. we could never persuade him of this argument. he also essentially thought he had been gained on the numbers in the first lockdown. he thought the nhs would somehow have got through, all the stuff about... somehow have got through, all the stuff about. . .— stuff about... was not concerned about the number _ stuff about... was not concerned about the number of _ stuff about... was not concerned about the number of people - stuff about... was not concerned about the number of people that| about the number of people that died? did you hear him say let the bodies pile high in their thousands? or its only killing 80—year—olds? there has been a few different versions of this story knocking around, a version of it in the sunday times which was not accurate. but the version that the bbc reported was accurate. find but the version that the bbc reported was accurate. and you hear that? i reported was accurate. and you hear that? i heard — reported was accurate. and you hear that? l heard that _ reported was accurate. and you hear that? i heard that in _ reported was accurate. and you hear that? i heard that in the _ reported was accurate. and you hear that? i heard that in the prime - that? i heard that in the prime minister's _ that? i heard that in the prime minister's study. _ that? i heard that in the prime minister's study. that - that? i heard that in the prime minister's study. that was - that? i heard that in the prime minister's study. that was not | that? i heard that in the prime - minister's study. that was not then, not in september. that was

immediately after he finally made the decision to do the lockdown on the decision to do the lockdown on the 31st of october. heat the decision to do the lockdown on the 31st of october. next question. you showed _ the 31st of october. next question. you showed as _ the 31st of october. next question. you showed as a _ the 31st of october. next question. you showed as a whiteboard - the 31st of october. next question. | you showed as a whiteboard picture and one of the phrases on it that i think has caused some concern is, "who do we not save? " what was the answer to that? that "who do we not save? " what was the answer to that?— answer to that? that was asking the obvious question _ answer to that? that was asking the obvious question at _ answer to that? that was asking the obvious question at that _ answer to that? that was asking the obvious question at that point. - answer to that? that was asking the obvious question at that point. it. obvious question at that point. it was too late to stop disaster. on the 13th of march, was my view and the 13th of march, was my view and the people who i thought i'd figured this out best. so the comment on that was essentially, we are already partly over the cliff. who's not going to be saved in the situation? having figured that out, who is most vulnerable, etc.— vulnerable, etc. what was the final straw that has _ vulnerable, etc. what was the final straw that has prompted _ vulnerable, etc. what was the final straw that has prompted you - vulnerable, etc. what was the final straw that has prompted you to - vulnerable, etc. what was the final i straw that has prompted you to come and give evidence such as you are today?

and give evidence such as you are toda ? ., and give evidence such as you are today?- some _ and give evidence such as you are today?- some would - and give evidence such as you are today?- some would say i and give evidence such as you are| today?- some would say for and give evidence such as you are i today?- some would say for a today? you... some would say for a government. _ today? you... some would say for a government, prime _ today? you. .. some would say for a government, prime minister- today? you... some would say for a l government, prime minister adviser, discretion is important. but you have disclosed everything today. so what prompted that? i have disclosed everything today. so what prompted that?— what prompted that? i think that. .. i think a couple _ what prompted that? i think that. .. i think a couple of— what prompted that? i think that. .. i think a couple of things. _ what prompted that? i think that. .. i think a couple of things. the - i think a couple of things. the scale of the disaster is so big that people can't wait. people need to understand how the government failed then when they needed them. people need me to understand that now. who knows what other kind of problems might come along in the next two years that could have the same consequences? critical as i have been of the prime minister, in no way, shape orform can you been of the prime minister, in no way, shape or form can you see it's just his fault. it wouldn't work if you just shuffled everything around. these feelings are programmed by the wiring of the system. if you have something this band and have tens of

thousand people die to didn't need to die, massive economic destruction the way we have had it that didn't happen, if we sorted things it earlier, everyone in this country needs to face the reality of this. secondly, it's come clear over the last couple of months that contrary to when i spoke to the prime minister about it last year, in the summer, he has clearly changed his mind and is now desperate not to face up to this and not to learn the lessons. i think because of the disaster in the autumn. talking about not learning _ disaster in the autumn. talking about not learning the - disaster in the autumn. talking j about not learning the lessons, disaster in the autumn. talking - about not learning the lessons, can i ask you some quick yes no answers and i will be done, chair. i appreciate that you did leave in november. were you surprised by the government delays in putting india on the red list? h0. government delays in putting india on the red list?— government delays in putting india on the red list? no, not surprise at all, it was — on the red list? no, not surprise at all, it was completely _ on the red list? no, not surprise at all, it was completely in _ on the red list? no, not surprise at all, it was completely in character. all, it was completely in character with number ten.— all, it was completely in character with number ten. surprised by the confusion on _ with number ten. surprised by the confusion on the _ with number ten. surprised by the confusion on the current _ with number ten. surprised by the confusion on the current travel- confusion on the current travel arrangements with green, amber and

red countries? it’s arrangements with green, amber and red countries?— red countries? it's de'a vu all over aaain. red countries? it's de'a vu all over again. who — red countries? it's de'a vu all over again. who sh red countries? it's deja vu all over again. who is advising _ red countries? it's deja vu all over again. who is advising the - red countries? it's deja vu all over again. who is advising the prime i again. who is advising the prime minister? don't _ again. who is advising the prime minister? don't know. _ again. who is advising the prime minister? don't know. are - again. who is advising the prime minister? don't know. are you i minister? don't know. are you surprised _ minister? don't know. are you surprised that _ minister? don't know. are you surprised that people - minister? don't know. are you surprised that people who - minister? don't know. are you surprised that people who are| minister? don't know. are you - surprised that people who are being encouraged to travel this year? i’m encouraged to travel this year? i'm not, on encouraged to travel this year? i'm not. on top — encouraged to travel this year? i'm not. on top of _ encouraged to travel this year? i'm not, on top of it enough to have a kind of sense overview in terms of whether or not people should be travelling. whether or not people should be travellinu. .. . whether or not people should be travellinu. ., , , ., whether or not people should be travelling-_ i - whether or not people should be travelling._ i think - whether or not people should be j travelling._ i think lots travelling. last year? ithink lots of thin . s travelling. last year? ithink lots of things we _ travelling. last year? ithink lots of things we did _ travelling. last year? ithink lots of things we did last _ travelling. last year? ithink lots of things we did last summer, i travelling. last year? ithink lotsj of things we did last summer, as travelling. last year? i think lots. of things we did last summer, as i said, i think i said at the time, big mistakes i... lots of people said to the prime minister last year, do not listen to the media, screaming at you about get back to work, physically go back to work. as soon as you get to september, you will be screaming back at everyone again, work from home again and everyone will think you have lost the plot, the government has lost the plot, the government has lost the plot, the government has lost the plot and they will be right. but that was one of the many arguments i lost in this whole thing.— lost in this whole thing. thank you ve much lost in this whole thing. thank you very much mr _ lost in this whole thing. thank you very much mr cummings, - lost in this whole thing. thank you very much mr cummings, thank. lost in this whole thing. thank you i very much mr cummings, thank you chair. i very much mr cummings, thank you chair. .., �* . very much mr cummings, thank you chair. .., �* , , ., chair. i can't remember whether you said if ou

chair. i can't remember whether you said if you were _ chair. i can't remember whether you said if you were opposed _ chair. i can't remember whether you said if you were opposed to - chair. i can't remember whether you said if you were opposed to eat - chair. i can't remember whether you said if you were opposed to eat out | said if you were opposed to eat out to heip— said if you were opposed to eat out to help 0ut? said if you were opposed to eat out to help out? | said if you were opposed to eat out to help out?— to help out? i was opposed to the aeneral to help out? i was opposed to the general strategy — to help out? i was opposed to the general strategy of _ to help out? i was opposed to the general strategy of the _ to help out? i was opposed to the general strategy of the prime - general strategy of the prime minister set out. i think once the prime minister said everyone get back to work, everyone get the economy going and everything else, then things like that are logical. the problem is fundamental decisions about the strategy was wrong. in the about the strategy was wrong. in the articular, about the strategy was wrong. in the particular. did _ about the strategy was wrong. in the particular, did you _ about the strategy was wrong. in the particular, did you advise _ about the strategy was wrong. in the particular, did you advise against it? did _ particular, did you advise against it? did you— particular, did you advise against it? did you advise anyone against? | it? did you advise anyone against? i can't it? did you advise anyone against? can't really it? did you advise anyone against? i can't really remember. it it? did you advise anyone against? i can't really remember. it was - it? did you advise anyone against? i can't really remember. it was quite| can't really remember. it was quite a big initiative? _ can't really remember. it was quite a big initiative? in _ can't really remember. it was quite a big initiative? in the _ can't really remember. it was quite a big initiative? in the grand - a big initiative? in the grand scheme of — a big initiative? in the grand scheme of things _ a big initiative? in the grand scheme of things it - a big initiative? in the grand scheme of things it didn't i a big initiative? in the grand i scheme of things it didn't seem a big initiative? in the grand - scheme of things it didn't seem like that at the time. 50 scheme of things it didn't seem like that at the time.— that at the time. so don't recall it... i that at the time. so don't recall it- -- i was _ that at the time. so don't recall it... iwas in— that at the time. so don't recall it... i was in meetings - that at the time. so don't recall it... i was in meetings but - that at the time. so don't recall it... i was in meetings but at i that at the time. so don't recall. it... i was in meetings but at that oint i it... i was in meetings but at that point i had _ it... i was in meetings but at that point i had basically _ it... i was in meetings but at that point i had basically lost - it... i was in meetings but at that point i had basically lost the - point i had basically lost the argument on the approach. 50 point i had basically lost the argument on the approach. so because the strate: argument on the approach. so because the strategy was _ argument on the approach. so because the strategy was not _ argument on the approach. so because the strategy was not the _ argument on the approach. so because the strategy was not the one _ argument on the approach. so because the strategy was not the one you - the strategy was not the one you wanted, — the strategy was not the one you wanted, you did not raise any questions? gn wanted, you did not raise any questions?— wanted, you did not raise any questions? wanted, you did not raise any cuestions? , , . , ., ., questions? on specifically eat out to help out. _ questions? on specifically eat out to help out. i _

questions? on specifically eat out to help out, i don't _ questions? on specifically eat out to help out, i don't honestly - to help out, i don't honestly remember what the conversations i had were on it. before that happened, that was a consequence of a strategic decision made by the prime minister, which was, we've killed the economy, we got to get the economy back, covid is in the past, there won't be a second wave, get everything open. me, the director of commune occasions, the cabinet secretary, other people said, hang on a second, what about all the following objections to this plan? we lost that argument. once that happens, then lots of other things naturally flow, like for example students coming back in september, all that sort of thing, which clearly, if you had taken a different view of it you would never have done. 50 different view of it you would never have done. , ., different view of it you would never have done-— different view of it you would never have done. �* ., , have done. so you didn't oppose the eat out to help _ have done. so you didn't oppose the eat out to help out _ have done. so you didn't oppose the eat out to help out because - have done. so you didn't oppose the eat out to help out because it - have done. so you didn't oppose the eat out to help out because it was i eat out to help out because it was consistent — eat out to help out because it was consistent with the strategy? | consistent with the strategy? honestly consistent with the strategy? i honestly can't remember what i said about eat out to help out, i didn't pay huge attention to eat out to help out. pay huge attention to eat out to hel out. , pay huge attention to eat out to help out._ thank . pay huge attention to eat out to i help out._ thank you, help out. jeremy hunt. thank you, ou have help out. jeremy hunt. thank you, you have been _ help out. jeremy hunt. thank you, you have been very _ help out. jeremy hunt. thank you, you have been very clear _ help out. jeremy hunt. thank you, you have been very clear that - help out. jeremy hunt. thank you, you have been very clear that the i you have been very clear that the prime minister rejected the idea of a circuit breaker towards the end of

september, of course what he would say is that they did have that circuit breaker in wales but they still had to go into the november lockdown. so many people say that it was actually inevitable anyway, the seeds had already been sown by that stage. ijust want seeds had already been sown by that stage. i just want to go through some of the things that could also have contributed to the need for a second lockdown. you don't recall opposing eat out to help out, which is something a lot of people have talked about. i think you just said then, correct me if i'm wrong, you didn't oppose students going back to university at the beginning of september, is that right? yes. university at the beginning of september, is that right? yes, i advised against _ september, is that right? yes, i advised against that. _ september, is that right? yes, i advised against that. i _ september, is that right? yes, i advised against that. i didn't - september, is that right? yes, i j advised against that. i didn't say september, is that right? yes, i i advised against that. i didn't say i was opposed or pro eat out to he to help out, was part of a plan that in the grand scheme was wrong, and i don't remember if i even gave a view specifically on eat out to help out. but you didn't for example advise against telling people to go back to work you thought that was wrong?

yes. . work you thought that was wrong? yes. , , ., ., ., , yes. -- but you did for example advise against _ yes. -- but you did for example advise against telling _ yes. -- but you did for example advise against telling people i yes. -- but you did for example advise against telling people to | yes. -- but you did for example i advise against telling people to go back to work. and you did advise against people going back to universities in september? yes. the hiuh universities in september? yes. the high number — universities in september? yes. the high number of infection circulating on nhs hospital wards, nhs data says about 8700 people died, having picked up infections inside hospitals, and we were busily very sorry to hear about your uncle earlier on. did you advise that we needed to bring forward the weekly testing of nhs staff, which wasn't actually introduced until november? yes. there were many, many meetings on testing of nhs staff. one of the things that i spent a huge amount of time on was trying to get these lump and lateral flow tests going so that nhs staff could basically have, like, a test a day for everybody in the nhs if they wanted to. it was

clear that that was technically possible, it was organisationally possible, it was organisationally possible, and it should be done, and i did all i could to try to accelerate that.- i did all i could to try to accelerate that. . ., , , accelerate that. and who resisted that happening. _ accelerate that. and who resisted that happening, because - accelerate that. and who resisted that happening, because it - accelerate that. and who resisted that happening, because it took i accelerate that. and who resisted that happening, because it took a long time, we did care homes in july, i think it actually didn't get operational until september but it was promised injuly, but it wasn't even promised for the nhs until november. i even promised for the nhs until november-— even promised for the nhs until november. ~' , ., november. ithink, 'ust in general on lam november. ithink, 'ust in general on ramp nah november. i think, just in general on lamp and lateral— november. i think, just in general on lamp and lateralflow, - november. i think, just in general on lamp and lateral flow, there i november. i think, just in general. on lamp and lateral flow, there was the same kind of incredibly conservative attitude and a kind of, if we just do pcr, everyone knows where they are and no one will criticise us. as soon as you do something new inside the civil service, if it works no one gets on a credit, if it doesn't work, you get the blow, —— the blame. there is a huge reverse ratchet against it. it took a huge effort from number ten to try and push this through, and that is after we had the prime minister supported, the cabinet

secretary supportive, hancock personally supportive, and we had a whole bunch of great people involved. i mean, to give you an example of how hard this was, after i spoke myself to some of the scientists involved with getting the mass testing going, and they describe all of the problems, and i spoke to the team in the test and trace, i sat down in the cabinet room with the cabinet secretary, literally the top officials, and the cabinet secretary and i said to all of them, this is a war, this is a wartime measure, this could make all the difference between how this country survives, hundreds of billions of pounds between now and the vaccine is hopefully coming on stream in quarter one next year. any rules, forget. procurement things, throw them away. hr rules in particular, throw them away, because

there were huge problems with recruiting a team. sue currently have much more than the pm, the pm's main advise and the cabinet secretary also that. two weeks later, all the people came back to us and said nothing is changed and we had to do the whole thing again and the cabinet secretary had to threaten people with being fired. so there was a whole, huge general resistance to this thing, because it seemed so new and risky, and they have these pcr tests where the accuracy rate is very, very high, and then a people couldn't get their head around the stats of the mass tests. �* ., , tests. but the thing that is ”uzzlin tests. but the thing that is puzzling about _ tests. but the thing that is puzzling about weekly - tests. but the thing that is i puzzling about weekly testing of tests. but the thing that is _ puzzling about weekly testing of nhs staff is that there were repeated calls in this place, from lots and lots of different people, to get on with it from the start of the summer on. . and it with it from the start of the summer on. yep. and it wasn't even announced _ on. yep. and it wasn't even announced as _ on. yep. and it wasn't even announced as a _ on. yep. and it wasn't even announced as a plan - on. yep. and it wasn't even announced as a plan until. on. yep. and it wasn't even announced as a plan until november. so it wasn't like anyone said we want to do weekly testing of nhs staff, it was actually not announced until november, and then the promise was to try and get it done by i

think the first week of december. and so why did it take so long even to accept that that should be the plan, given that we now know semi people picked up infections in hospitals?— people picked up infections in hositals? ,, . �* ., hospitals? so, with respect, i'm not aruauin hospitals? so, with respect, i'm not arguing with — hospitals? so, with respect, i'm not arguing with you _ hospitals? so, with respect, i'm not arguing with you about _ hospitals? so, with respect, i'm not arguing with you about the - arguing with you about the announcement, i can't are now definitely when announcements were made, but i was having meetings in april about testing nhs staff on as fast a basis as possible, meetings in july about getting mass tests out, and i had literally meetings almost every day of my government career from the 1st of september until the day i left on mass testing and the subject. 50 until the day i left on mass testing and the subject.— until the day i left on mass testing and the subject. and the sub'ect. so you wanted to do it, that's and the subject. so you wanted to do it, that's the — and the subject. so you wanted to do it, that's the point, _ and the subject. so you wanted to do it, that's the point, it _ and the subject. so you wanted to do it, that's the point, itjust _ and the subject. so you wanted to do it, that's the point, it just wasn't i it, that's the point, itjust wasn't announced as an objective? announced as an ob'ective? number ten was pushing — announced as an ob'ective? number ten was pushing it i announced as an objective? number ten was pushing it to _ announced as an objective? number ten was pushing it to the _ announced as an objective? number ten was pushing it to the team, i announced as an objective? number ten was pushing it to the team, the | ten was pushing it to the team, the test and trace team that we had built were pushing for it, that was definitely one of our core goals, yes. definitely one of our core goals,

es. . . definitely one of our core goals, es, ., , ., definitely one of our core goals, es. ., , ., ., ., , yes. ok. last one from me on this section. yes. ok. last one from me on this section- you _ yes. ok. last one from me on this section. you said _ yes. ok. last one from me on this section. you said earlier _ yes. ok. last one from me on this section. you said earlier that - yes. ok. last one from me on this section. you said earlier that you i section. you said earlier that you should have resigned probably in the spring, and definitely in september. you did actually end up resigning at the end of the year. can you understand how, to some people, it looks like you resigned after losing a power struggle in number ten, but you didn't resign over issues that cost thousands of lives, and how that makes people angry?- cost thousands of lives, and how that makes people angry? there are so many crazy _ that makes people angry? there are so many crazy stories _ that makes people angry? there are so many crazy stories about - that makes people angry? there are so many crazy stories about what i so many crazy stories about what happened in number ten that are mostly untrue, so all i would say to people is don't believe what you read in the newspapers about things like that. 50 read in the newspapers about things like that. , ., .., ., ., like that. so your recognition have nothin: to like that. so your recognition have nothing to do _ like that. so your recognition have nothing to do with _ like that. so your recognition have nothing to do with lee _ like that. so your recognition have nothing to do with lee k _ like that. so your recognition have nothing to do with lee k not - like that. so your recognition have nothing to do with lee k not being appointed to the position you wanted and things like that? so appointed to the position you wanted and things like that?— and things like that? so my resignation _ and things like that? so my resignation was _ and things like that? so my resignation was definitely l and things like that? so my - resignation was definitely connected to the fact that the prime minister's girlfriend was trying to

change a whole bunch of different appointments in number ten and appointments in number ten and appoint herfriends to appointments in number ten and appoint her friends to particular jobs, in particularshe appoint her friends to particular jobs, in particular she was trying to overturn the outcome of an official process about hiring a particularjob in a way which was not only completely unethical but was also clearly illegal. i thought the whole process about how the prime minister was behaving at that point was appalling, and all of that was definitely part of why i went. however, this had all been, as i said to you, i have this conversation with him the night before my operation back injuly, it was clear injuly that our relations were very far from where they had been, and they took another terrible dive after the second lockdown in october, because the prime minister knew that i blamed him for the whole situation, and i did, and, you know,

by the 31st of october, our relations were essentially already finished, and the fact that his governor also wanted rid of me was relevant but not the heart of the problem. —— his girlfriend also wanted rid of me. fundamentally i regarded him as unfit for the job and i was trying to create a structure around him to try and stop what i thought were extremely bad decisions and push other things through against his wishes, and he had the view that he was prime minister and i should just be doing as he wanted me to do, that is honestly not sustainable for very long. and i only stayed because i was desperate to try and push through action to stop as many people dying as i could do. was —— once the second lockdown happened on sist, it once the second lockdown happened on 31st, it was obvious i was going to be gone within days, and remember, i had always said i would go by the end of december injuly, so it was not really anything... the thing i got wrong and what i terribly regret

now is, on tuesday 22nd, after we had done that theoretical meeting, set in the future, five or six weeks, which i had organised, and he saw all the data, and he said that, at that point i was already going in kind of 12 weeks anyway, what i ought to have done is said to him then, i am ought to have done is said to him then, lam resigning in 48 hours, we can do this one way or we can do this the other way. if you announce that you're going to have a lockdown and take serious action now, i will leave, go quietly, we're all friends. if you don't, i will call a press conference and say the prime minister is making a terrible decision that will kill thousands of people, and i should have gambled on holding a gun to his head essentially and who knows whether that would worked or not, but fundamentally it was kind of all upside, given that my role there was basically done at that point. so i apologise for not trying that, should have done, i was dissuaded from it, because people basically thought, well, maybe you can help reverse this decision over the coming week, it is the constant problem, you stay because you think maybe you can change things. but in

retrospect now, seeing how things played out, lots of things are quite difficult to figure out hypothetically, but there is no doubt in my mind now that i made a mistake and i should have gambled on that week. .. ~ mistake and i should have gambled on that week. ., ,, , ., mistake and i should have gambled on that week. .. ~' , ., g , . that week. thank you, jeremy. paul bristow. thank _ that week. thank you, jeremy. paul bristow. thank you, _ that week. thank you, jeremy. paul bristow. thank you, chair. - that week. thank you, jeremy. paul bristow. thank you, chair. mr- bristow. thank you, chair. mr cummings. — bristow. thank you, chair. mr cummings. i— bristow. thank you, chair. mr cummings, i have _ bristow. thank you, chair. mr cummings, i have listened i bristow. thank you, chair. mr- cummings, i have listened carefully to your— cummings, i have listened carefully to your advice. _ cummings, i have listened carefully to your advice, or— cummings, i have listened carefully to your advice, or your— cummings, i have listened carefully to your advice, or your testimony i cummings, i have listened carefully| to your advice, or your testimony on decision— to your advice, or your testimony on decision in— to your advice, or your testimony on decision in september, _ to your advice, or your testimony on decision in september, but- to your advice, or your testimony on decision in september, but sage i decision in september, but sage advice _ decision in september, but sage advice on — decision in september, but sage advice on 21st _ decision in september, but sage advice on 21st of _ decision in september, but sage advice on 21st of september i decision in september, but sage advice on 21st of september had i decision in september, but sage i advice on 21st of september had a shortlist_ advice on 21st of september had a shortlist of— advice on 21st of september had a shortlist of options, _ advice on 21st of september had a shortlist of options, only - advice on 21st of september had a shortlist of options, only one - advice on 21st of september had a shortlist of options, only one of. shortlist of options, only one of which _ shortlist of options, only one of which was — shortlist of options, only one of which was a _ shortlist of options, only one of which was a circuit _ shortlist of options, only one of which was a circuit breaker - which was a circuit breaker iockdoww _ which was a circuit breaker lockdown. is— which was a circuit breaker lockdown. is it _ which was a circuit breaker lockdown. is it any - which was a circuit breaker lockdown. is it any wonderi which was a circuit breaker - lockdown. is it any wonder that the prime _ lockdown. is it any wonder that the prime minister— lockdown. is it any wonder that the prime minister sought— lockdown. is it any wonder that the prime minister sought alternatives| prime minister sought alternatives to lockdown, — prime minister sought alternatives to lockdown, given _ prime minister sought alternatives to lockdown, given the _ prime minister sought alternatives to lockdown, given the weakness i prime minister sought alternativesi to lockdown, given the weakness of that advice? — to lockdown, given the weakness of that advice?— that advice? well, i think you can't reall take that advice? well, i think you can't really take the _ that advice? well, i think you can't really take the thing... _ that advice? well, i think you can't really take the thing... as - that advice? well, i think you can't really take the thing... as we - that advice? well, i think you can't really take the thing... as we can i really take the thing... as we can see from march, often what is written down in sage papers is not very close to the conversations that are in the room. so with respect, i would say that your picture of what

was presented to the prime minister is not accurate. patrick vallance was very, very clear, chris whitty was very, very clear, chris whitty was very, very clear, chris whitty was very clear, the data was extremely clear, that unless you act, thousands of people are going to die. , ~ , act, thousands of people are going todie. , ~ , to die. sorry, mr cummings, it says here in its— to die. sorry, mr cummings, it says here in its september— to die. sorry, mr cummings, it says here in its september advice, - to die. sorry, mr cummings, it says here in its september advice, sage | here in its september advice, sage said a _ here in its september advice, sage said a more — here in its september advice, sage said a more effective _ here in its september advice, sage said a more effective response - here in its september advice, sage| said a more effective response now may reduce — said a more effective response now may reduce the _ said a more effective response now may reduce the length _ said a more effective response now may reduce the length of— said a more effective response now may reduce the length of time - said a more effective response now| may reduce the length of time from which _ may reduce the length of time from which some — may reduce the length of time from which some measures _ may reduce the length of time from which some measures are - may reduce the length of time fromi which some measures are required. may ish't _ which some measures are required. may isn't wetcome _ which some measures are required. may isn't welcome is _ which some measures are required. may isn't welcome is it? _ which some measures are required. may isn't welcome is it? ”i'he- which some measures are required. may isn't welcome is it?— may isn't welcome is it? the word ma does may isn't welcome is it? the word may does not _ may isn't welcome is it? the word may does not mean _ may isn't welcome is it? the word may does not mean the _ may isn't welcome is it? the word may does not mean the same - may isn't welcome is it? the word may does not mean the same as i may isn't welcome is it? the word i may does not mean the same as the word will come no, but that is not what the conversation was in number ten. ., , ., ten. 0k, all right. in your testimony. _ ten. 0k, all right. in your testimony, and _ ten. 0k, all right. in your testimony, and on - ten. 0k, all right. in your testimony, and on social| ten. 0k, all right. in your- testimony, and on social media, ten. 0k, all right. in your— testimony, and on social media, you talk about— testimony, and on social media, you talk about an — testimony, and on social media, you talk about an able _ testimony, and on social media, you talk about an able few, _ testimony, and on social media, you talk about an able few, many- testimony, and on social media, you talk about an able few, many of- testimony, and on social media, you l talk about an able few, many of whom to quote _ talk about an able few, many of whom to quote you _ talk about an able few, many of whom to quote you are — talk about an able few, many of whom to quote you are now _ talk about an able few, many of whom to quote you are now gone _ talk about an able few, many of whom to quote you are now gone or- talk about an able few, many of whom to quote you are now gone or leaving i to quote you are now gone or leaving or planning _ to quote you are now gone or leaving or planning to — to quote you are now gone or leaving or planning to leave, _ to quote you are now gone or leaving or planning to leave, and _ to quote you are now gone or leaving or planning to leave, and the - to quote you are now gone or leaving or planning to leave, and the rest- or planning to leave, and the rest are att— or planning to leave, and the rest are all disastrously— or planning to leave, and the rest are all disastrously wrong - or planning to leave, and the rest are all disastrously wrong or - are all disastrously wrong or usetess _ are all disastrously wrong or useless and _ are all disastrously wrong or useless and get _ are all disastrously wrong or useless and get the - are all disastrously wrong or - useless and get the promotions. there _ useless and get the promotions. there doesn't— useless and get the promotions. there doesn't seem _ useless and get the promotions. there doesn't seem to _ useless and get the promotions. there doesn't seem to be - useless and get the promotions. there doesn't seem to be any. useless and get the promotions. there doesn't seem to be any in| there doesn't seem to be any in betweeh — there doesn't seem to be any in betweeh your— there doesn't seem to be any in between. your world _ there doesn't seem to be any in between. your world only- there doesn't seem to be any in between. your world only really| there doesn't seem to be any in- between. your world only really sees

heroes _ between. your world only really sees heroes and _ between. your world only really sees heroes and villains. _ between. your world only really sees heroes and villains. is _ between. your world only really sees heroes and villains. is it— between. your world only really sees heroes and villains. is it really- heroes and villains. is it really that— heroes and villains. is it really that black—and—white? - heroes and villains. is it really that black—and—white? bio, i heroes and villains. is it really that black-and-white?- heroes and villains. is it really that black-and-white? no, of course not, but it that black-and-white? no, of course not. but it is — that black-and-white? no, of course not. but it is a _ that black-and-white? no, of course not, but it is a basic _ that black-and-white? no, of course not, but it is a basic problem - not, but it is a basic problem inside the system that lots of very able people get weeded out from the very top jobs and lots of people who are not fit for them get promoted. that is a core problem with political parties and the civil service. d0 political parties and the civil service. ,, political parties and the civil service. , ., service. do you accept that there are some peeple _ service. do you accept that there are some people who _ service. do you accept that there are some people who may - service. do you accept that there are some people who may be - are some people who may be brilliant, _ are some people who may be brilliant, but _ are some people who may be brilliant, but who _ are some people who may be brilliant, but who are - are some people who may be brilliant, but who are also - brilliant, but who are also difficult _ brilliant, but who are also difficult and _ brilliant, but who are also difficult and flawed, - brilliant, but who are also difficult and flawed, and i brilliant, but who are alsoi difficult and flawed, and in brilliant, but who are also - difficult and flawed, and in the end are impossible _ difficult and flawed, and in the end are impossible to _ difficult and flawed, and in the end are impossible to satisfy? - difficult and flawed, and in the end are impossible to satisfy? [- difficult and flawed, and in the end are impossible to satisfy?- are impossible to satisfy? i didn't hear that very _ are impossible to satisfy? i didn't hear that very well, _ are impossible to satisfy? i didn't hear that very well, there - are impossible to satisfy? i didn't hear that very well, there are - are impossible to satisfy? i didn't l hear that very well, there are some people who. .. hear that very well, there are some people who... do hear that very well, there are some peeple wh0- - -_ people who... do you accept that some peeple _ people who... do you accept that some people who _ people who... do you accept that some people who may _ people who... do you accept that some people who may be - people who... do you accept that i some people who may be brilliant, but are _ some people who may be brilliant, but are also — some people who may be brilliant, but are also difficult _ some people who may be brilliant, but are also difficult and _ some people who may be brilliant, but are also difficult and flawed, . but are also difficult and flawed, and in _ but are also difficult and flawed, and in the — but are also difficult and flawed, and in the end _ but are also difficult and flawed, and in the end are _ but are also difficult and flawed, and in the end are impossible i but are also difficult and flawed, and in the end are impossible toi and in the end are impossible to satisfy? — and in the end are impossible to satisfy? titti— and in the end are impossible to satis ? . ., , and in the end are impossible to satis ? , , ., satisfy? of course, but if you are t in: to satisfy? of course, but if you are trying to get _ satisfy? of course, but if you are trying to get a — satisfy? of course, but if you are trying to get a team _ satisfy? of course, but if you are trying to get a team at _ satisfy? of course, but if you are trying to get a team at the - satisfy? of course, but if you are trying to get a team at the top i satisfy? of course, but if you arei trying to get a team at the top of government to deal with crises, you have to try and get the best talent that this country has to offer, and

different kinds of talent. you need people who can think through very hard problems in a quantitative way, you need people who can make decisions effectively, you know people who can build things operationally at scale, and you need teams who can bring these skills together and integrate them, and we didn't have that. i'm not suggesting by the way, just so we are completely clear, i am not putting myself in the category of good people who should be promoted at all. quite the opposite. i regarded my own position there is like a weird quirk of history, and my goal injanuary was to try weird quirk of history, and my goal in january was to try and weird quirk of history, and my goal injanuary was to try and recruit weird quirk of history, and my goal in january was to try and recruit a whole bunch of people who were much smarter than me and much better able than me to deal with government problems, so that i could make myself redundant, which i said publicly, which i believed. {lila myself redundant, which i said publicly, which i believed. 0k, 'ust one final question. i

publicly, which i believed. 0k, 'ust one final question. i i publicly, which i believed. 0k, 'ust one final question. i just i publicly, which i believed. 0k, 'ust one final question. i just want h publicly, which i believed. 0k, just one final question. i just want to l one final question. ijust want to return— one final question. ijust want to return to — one final question. ijust want to return to your _ one final question. ijust want to return to your earlier— one final question. ijust want to return to your earlier comment i one final question. ijust want to - return to your earlier comment about not being _ return to your earlier comment about not being focused _ return to your earlier comment about not being focused on— return to your earlier comment about not being focused on coronavirus - not being focused on coronavirus untit— not being focused on coronavirus until a _ not being focused on coronavirus until a relatively— not being focused on coronavirus until a relatively late _ not being focused on coronavirus until a relatively late stage. - not being focused on coronavirus until a relatively late stage. 0ne| until a relatively late stage. one jourhatist — until a relatively late stage. one jourhatist has _ until a relatively late stage. one journalist has posted _ until a relatively late stage. one journalist has posted a - until a relatively late stage. one journalist has posted a messagej until a relatively late stage. one - journalist has posted a message from someone _ journalist has posted a message from someone who— journalist has posted a message from someone who was _ journalist has posted a message from someone who was working _ journalist has posted a message from someone who was working at - journalist has posted a message from someone who was working at number ten someone who was working at number teh at _ someone who was working at number teh at the _ someone who was working at number teh at the time, — someone who was working at number ten at the time, and _ someone who was working at number ten at the time, and with— someone who was working at number ten at the time, and with apologies . ten at the time, and with apologies for the _ ten at the time, and with apologies for the language. _ ten at the time, and with apologies for the language, it _ ten at the time, and with apologies for the language, it reads, - for the language, it reads, disingenuous _ for the language, it reads, disingenuous little - for the language, it reads, | disingenuous little fokker, for the language, it reads, - disingenuous little fokker, the reason — disingenuous little fokker, the reason he _ disingenuous little fokker, the reason he wasn't _ disingenuous little fokker, the reason he wasn't paying - disingenuous little fokker, the i reason he wasn't paying attention disingenuous little fokker, the - reason he wasn't paying attention is that his _ reason he wasn't paying attention is that his plan — reason he wasn't paying attention is that his plan to— reason he wasn't paying attention is that his plan to derail— reason he wasn't paying attention is that his plan to derail boris... - that his plan to derail boris... paut. — that his plan to derail boris... paul. i— that his plan to derail boris... paut. i don't— that his plan to derail boris... paul, i don't want _ that his plan to derail boris... paul, i don't want any- that his plan to derail boris... . paul, i don't want any repetition that his plan to derail boris... - paul, i don't want any repetition of that language. you can edit it. ok. so the reason _ that language. you can edit it. ok. so the reason he _ that language. you can edit it. ok. so the reason he wasn't paying attention— so the reason he wasn't paying attention that _ so the reason he wasn't paying attention that his _ so the reason he wasn't paying attention that his plan - so the reason he wasn't paying attention that his plan to - so the reason he wasn't payingj attention that his plan to derail boris _ attention that his plan to derail boris puitihq _ attention that his plan to derail boris pulling him _ attention that his plan to derail boris pulling him off— attention that his plan to derail boris pulling him off his- attention that his plan to derail boris pulling him off his perchi attention that his plan to derail. boris pulling him off his perch and having _ boris pulling him off his perch and having cuhhihq _ boris pulling him off his perch and having cunning acolytes _ boris pulling him off his perch and having cunning acolytes in- boris pulling him off his perch and having cunning acolytes in every. having cunning acolytes in every post in — having cunning acolytes in every post in power— having cunning acolytes in every post in power was— having cunning acolytes in every post in power was undone - having cunning acolytes in every post in power was undone by. having cunning acolytes in every| post in power was undone by the reality— post in power was undone by the reality of— post in power was undone by the reality of the _ post in power was undone by the reality of the situation. - post in power was undone by the reality of the situation. i - post in power was undone by the reality of the situation. i have i reality of the situation. i have never — reality of the situation. i have never seen _ reality of the situation. i have never seen such _ reality of the situation. i have never seen such a _ reality of the situation. i have never seen such a squirming i reality of the situation. i have i never seen such a squirming list reality of the situation. i have - never seen such a squirming list of vicious _ never seen such a squirming list of vicious contradiction— never seen such a squirming list of vicious contradiction embodied - never seen such a squirming list of vicious contradiction embodied in i never seen such a squirming list ofj vicious contradiction embodied in a single _ vicious contradiction embodied in a single individual. _ vicious contradiction embodied in a single individual. what _ vicious contradiction embodied in a single individual. what is _ vicious contradiction embodied in a single individual. what is your- single individual. what is your response _ single individual. what is your response to _ single individual. what is your response to that? _ single individual. what is your response to that? i— single individual. what is your response to that?— single individual. what is your response to that? i don't quite understand — response to that? i don't quite understand the _ response to that? i don't quite understand the accusation, - response to that? i don't quite | understand the accusation, i'm afraid. what is it about february

that supposedly i did? i afraid. what is it about february that supposedly i did?— afraid. what is it about february that supposedly i did? i guess it is sa in: ou that supposedly i did? i guess it is saying you were — that supposedly i did? i guess it is saying you were distracted - that supposedly i did? i guess it is saying you were distracted by - that supposedly i did? i guess it is saying you were distracted by comj saying you were distracted by com you focus — saying you were distracted by com you focus wasn't _ saying you were distracted by com you focus wasn't on _ saying you were distracted by com you focus wasn't on covid - saying you were distracted by com you focus wasn't on covid until - saying you were distracted by com| you focus wasn't on covid until the back end _ you focus wasn't on covid until the back end of— you focus wasn't on covid until the back end of february, _ you focus wasn't on covid until the back end of february, despite - you focus wasn't on covid until the back end of february, despite the i back end of february, despite the fact _ back end of february, despite the fact i— back end of february, despite the fact... ., ., , ., ., fact... i apologise for the rather stron: fact... i apologise for the rather strong language _ fact... i apologise for the rather strong language you _ fact... i apologise for the rather strong language you heard - fact... i apologise for the rather. strong language you heard without warning, as a quirk was read out, our apologies. warning, as a quirk was read out, our apologies-— our apologies. placing your own acol es our apologies. placing your own acolytes in _ our apologies. placing your own acolytes in every _ our apologies. placing your own acolytes in every post _ our apologies. placing your own acolytes in every post with - our apologies. placing your own i acolytes in every post with power, and that _ acolytes in every post with power, and that was — acolytes in every post with power, and that was undone _ acolytes in every post with power, and that was undone by— acolytes in every post with power, and that was undone by the - acolytes in every post with power, | and that was undone by the reality of the _ and that was undone by the reality of the situation. _ and that was undone by the reality of the situation. quite _ and that was undone by the reality of the situation. quite frankly, - and that was undone by the reality of the situation. quite frankly, mr| of the situation. quite frankly, mr cummings, — of the situation. quite frankly, mr cummings, you _ of the situation. quite frankly, mr cummings, you have— of the situation. quite frankly, mr cummings, you have to _ of the situation. quite frankly, mr cummings, you have to work- of the situation. quite frankly, mr cummings, you have to work withj cummings, you have to work with other— cummings, you have to work with other people. _ cummings, you have to work with other people, and _ cummings, you have to work with other people, and i— cummings, you have to work with other people, and i guess- cummings, you have to work with other people, and i guess that. cummings, you have to work with other people, and i guess that isi other people, and i guess that is the accusation, _ other people, and i guess that is the accusation, that _ other people, and i guess that is the accusation, that you - other people, and i guess that is the accusation, that you didn't i other people, and i guess that is i the accusation, that you didn't work well with— the accusation, that you didn't work well with others. _ the accusation, that you didn't work well with others.— well with others. well, i think i worked well — well with others. well, i think i worked well with _ well with others. well, i think i worked well with some - well with others. well, i think i j worked well with some people, well with others. well, i think i i worked well with some people, i didn't necessarily work well with others. different people have different kinds of temperaments. i would stress that lots of the things you read in the media about me are not correct. i would point out that on quite a few occasions i have built teams that have been

successful, because i know how to build teams and i know how to manage them well. the media stories about all kinds of things, and about how relations were with civil servants and whatnot, are 99% nonsense, and i would advise that you don't listen to them. ., ., ., to them. 0k, we will go to tie over tell . to them. 0k, we will go to tie over telly- thank— to them. 0k, we will go to tie over telly. thank you, _ to them. 0k, we will go to tie over telly. thank you, chair, _ to them. 0k, we will go to tie over telly. thank you, chair, thank - to them. 0k, we will go to tie over telly. thank you, chair, thank you | telly. thank you, chair, thank you mr cummings- — telly. thank you, chair, thank you mr cummings. mr _ telly. thank you, chair, thank you mr cummings. mr cummings, - telly. thank you, chair, thank you mr cummings. mr cummings, do| telly. thank you, chair, thank you - mr cummings. mr cummings, do you have any reasons to believe that the prime minister may have been distracted from leading the national response to the covid pandemic because of his own personal financial interest? i because of his own personal financial interest?— because of his own personal financial interest? i don't know exactly what — financial interest? i don't know exactly what you _ financial interest? i don't know exactly what you mean, - financial interest? i don't know exactly what you mean, it - financial interest? i don't know exactly what you mean, it is i exactly what you mean, it is certainly the case that in february he had a string, obviously, it is a matter of public record, he was distracted by, he was finalising his divorce, his girlfriend wanted to

announce being pregnant, and engagement, and, you know, his finances and all that sort of stuff. i mean, certainly in february, he had a very difficult time mid february in his private life, for sure. ~ . �* , february in his private life, for sure. ~ ., �* , ., february in his private life, for sure. ~ . �* y ., ., february in his private life, for sure. ., �* , ., ., , sure. what i'm trying to get at is, civen the sure. what i'm trying to get at is, given the fact _ sure. what i'm trying to get at is, given the fact the _ sure. what i'm trying to get at is, given the fact the prime - sure. what i'm trying to get at is, given the fact the prime ministerl sure. what i'm trying to get at is, i given the fact the prime minister is currently writing a book, the fact he has reportedly spent time seeking private donations to fund his own lifestyle, do you think that is a useful way for a prime minister to spend his time, given the fact that we were in a public health crisis? obviously i think the prime minister's focus should be on the prime minister'sjob. i made clear before this meeting my views on what he was doing, regarding other things in numberten, but he was doing, regarding other things in number ten, but i don't think todayis in number ten, but i don't think today is the day to go into that sort of stuff. today is the day to go into that sort of stuff-— sort of stuff. fair enough. just movin: sort of stuff. fair enough. just moving on _ sort of stuff. fair enough. just moving on to _ sort of stuff. fair enough. just| moving on to communications, sort of stuff. fair enough. just - moving on to communications, did you think that senior medical officers,

such as professor chris whitty, sir patrick vallance, working within the government were ever used during the evening press conference as political props to present greater plausibility to the government's covid—i9 messaging, even when the message wasn't clear, or ineffective? i message wasn't clear, or ineffective?— message wasn't clear, or ineffective? . ., , , ineffective? i certainly believe that the secretary _ ineffective? i certainly believe that the secretary of - ineffective? i certainly believe that the secretary of state - ineffective? i certainly believe i that the secretary of state matt hancock used patrick vallance and chris whitty as shields for himself, yes, and he used a whole, we are following the science, as a way so that he could always say, well, if things go wrong we can blame the scientists and it is not my fault. i saw him discuss that with the prime minister, and i think it was one of the many appalling things that hancock did. find the many appalling things that hancock did.— the many appalling things that hancock did. �* , ., ~' ., hancock did. and did you think that was an acceptable _ hancock did. and did you think that was an acceptable way _ hancock did. and did you think that was an acceptable way to _ hancock did. and did you think that was an acceptable way to use - hancock did. and did you think that was an acceptable way to use the i was an acceptable way to use the time of senior medical officers, given the fact that we were in a public health crisis? i given the fact that we were in a

public health crisis?— given the fact that we were in a public health crisis? i think it was certainly a _ public health crisis? i think it was certainly a reasonable _ public health crisis? i think it was certainly a reasonable use - public health crisis? i think it was certainly a reasonable use of- public health crisis? i think it was| certainly a reasonable use of their time, well, in principle, ithink certainly a reasonable use of their time, well, in principle, i think it was certainly a reasonable use of their time to give press conferences. i think that it was actually a good idea for us to do the press conferences at number ten with the prime minister and the chief scientific adviser and the chief scientific adviser and the chief medical officer. i think in principle that was the right thing to do. i was very strongly actually in favour of having the scientists and the medics just explain the reality about what was happening. i think what was not right was the secretary of state trying to use them essentially as a kind of shield for himself. i think that was unethical and just obviously wrong. moving on to the matter of ethics, as mp5, all mp5 have to sign a code of conduct to say they are going to

be honest, that they are going to be transparent and we're going to be accountable, so do you think that the prime minister and other cabinet members, i know you have already expressed your concerns about matt hancock, do you think that they were always transparent, honest and accountable to members of the public, regarding the covid—i9 pandemic? i public, regarding the covid-19 pandemic?— public, regarding the covid-19 pandemic? public, regarding the covid-19 andemic? ~' , , ., pandemic? i think inevitably it is a mixed bag- _ pandemic? i think inevitably it is a mixed bag- i— pandemic? i think inevitably it is a mixed bag. ithink— pandemic? i think inevitably it is a mixed bag. i think that _ pandemic? i think inevitably it is a mixed bag. i think that the - mixed bag. i think that the chancellor and the foreign secretary dominic raab did brilliantly. dominic raab did brilliantly. dominic raab did brilliantly. dominic raab i think has not got nearly enough credit as he should have done, because he had to step into an extraordinarily difficult situation with the prime minister on his deathbed. remember, that when dominic raab took over, there was a conversation in number ten with the cabinet secretary and lee kay, director of communications, about calling a cabinet to try to find a replacement for the prime minister in case he died. that is how serious the situation was, and dominicjust had to step into that environment, completely, nobody had dealt with

the situation dominic raab faced literally since churchill in world war ii, because you have the crucial elements of the state gone, prime minister on his deathbed, crucial people, the cabinet secretary l, blah blah blah. so dominic raab did an outstanding job, the chancellor did an outstanding job, you know, i've made my views on the prime minister and the secretary of state clear. 50 minister and the secretary of state clear. ., minister and the secretary of state clear, ., , ., “ minister and the secretary of state clear. ., , ., ,, ., ,., clear. so do you think the reason wh the clear. so do you think the reason why the prime — clear. so do you think the reason why the prime minister _ clear. so do you think the reason why the prime minister didn't - clear. so do you think the reason i why the prime minister didn't sack the secretary of state was because in doing so himself has made very similar mistakes during this pandemic, so in doing so and sacking the secretary of state would mean that he would have brought his roll into disrepute? do you think that is the reason why the prime minister didn't make such a decision? it is didn't make such a decision? it is definitely the _ didn't make such a decision? it is definitely the case of the prime minister was told that, contrary to my view, i said sack him, almost every week was sometimes almost every week was sometimes almost

every day. —— i said sack him, almost every week, sometimes almost every day. i was told don't sack him, because he is the person you fire when the enquiry comes along. my fire when the enquiry comes along. my counterargument was if you leave him there we are going to have another set of disasters in the autumn, and that's the critical thing. forget the enquiry, god knows when that will bloody happen, we've got to get rid of this guy now because every single week things are going disastrously wrong. like, the whole focus of trying to deal with the enquiry is mental.— the enquiry is mental. let's 'ust move on to fl the enquiry is mental. let's 'ust move on to autumn * the enquiry is mental. let's 'ust move on to autumn and i the enquiry is mental. let'sjust move on to autumn and how - the enquiry is mental. let'sjust| move on to autumn and how the the enquiry is mental. let'sjust - move on to autumn and how the system —— the chairing system was introduced. -- the chairing system was introduced.— -- the chairing system was introduced. , ., , , introduced. the division bell is rin . in . introduced. the division bell is ringing here- _ introduced. the division bell is ringing here. sorry, _ introduced. the division bell is ringing here. sorry, the - introduced. the division bell is| ringing here. sorry, the division bell. the something _ ringing here. sorry, the division bell. the something system. i

ringing here. sorry, the division. bell. the something system. the tiering system. and ensuring there were breaks in place. how did we get to a point of the tiering system, how was it decided?— to a point of the tiering system, how was it decided? goodness, i mean... where _ how was it decided? goodness, i mean... where you _ how was it decided? goodness, i mean... where you involved - how was it decided? goodness, i mean... where you involved in i how was it decided? goodness, i i mean... where you involved in the decidin: mean. .. where you involved in the deciding of— mean... where you involved in the deciding of the _ mean... where you involved in the deciding of the tiering _ mean... where you involved in the deciding of the tiering system - mean... where you involved in the deciding of the tiering system and | deciding of the tiering system and did you agree when it was proposed? i was certainly involved with it, in principle, it made sense to have some kind of regional system. again, if you look at the experience of east asia, if you have an outbreak in parts of korea, they don't shut the whole of koreatown, right? they have targeted, specific local action to try and hit hotspots —— the whole of korea down. i was trying to get as close as possible to that kind of system. similarly in britain, in an ideal world, system. similarly in britain, in an idealworld, if system. similarly in britain, in an ideal world, if you have an outbreak in cornwall, we didn't want to be

have to be shutting down the north of scotland, right? you wanted to be able to have a more nuanced approach. in march, we didn't have any testing, we didn't have any proper information, we didn't know anything, so we were completely snookered and had to do a national lockdown. but the whole point of the shift to plan b, building, testing etc was we could move to the east asian approach, where then you could have the testing data gives you testing, sewage data, all of that can come together, so you can go, fast, hotspot, cornwall, shut down there, that town, that town, that town, that area, whatever. but scotland, carry on. that was the conceptual idea that we had. now, in practice, the way that it was actually worked out and the way it was actually implemented was, you know, full of holes and extremely problematic, to say the least, in practice, but i think the basic concept has to be right. and

practice, but i think the basic concept has to be right. and what were the holes? _ concept has to be right. and what were the holes? do _ concept has to be right. and what were the holes? do you _ concept has to be right. and what were the holes? do you think- concept has to be right. and what were the holes? do you think the| were the holes? do you think the government acted quick enough to implement the restrictions, and what were the holes in the tiering system? in were the holes in the tiering s stem? ,, , , were the holes in the tiering | system?_ you were the holes in the tiering - system?_ you talked system? in september? you talked about having _ system? in september? you talked about having holes _ system? in september? you talked about having holes in _ system? in september? you talked about having holes in the _ system? in september? you talked about having holes in the tiering . about having holes in the tiering system, what were they? it about having holes in the tiering system, what were they?- about having holes in the tiering system, what were they? it was put toaether system, what were they? it was put together chaotically, _ system, what were they? it was put together chaotically, and _ system, what were they? it was put together chaotically, and there - system, what were they? it was put| together chaotically, and there were all sorts of problems. are we doing it by town, are we doing it by region? if you draw a line there, will you just get people driving 30 miles to go to a pub across the line? like lots of things, it was the victim of having to be kind of cobbled together when under time pressure to do things, rather than having been thought out earlier on.

and also, this kind of second order and reverberation effects of, because we couldn't get enforcement sorted out properly in various ways, then we couldn't do the kind of very specific, hyper local approach that places like korea did, therefore we had to do them better, therefore you annoy more people, therefore more people drive out of the area, etc, etc, so the whole thing, we just didn't get into... we basically created it ad hoc, because the prime minister wouldn't do the kind of let's try and smash it now. what should have happened is, well, what really should have happened is we should never have let it get out of control anyway. once you have let it get out of control, then in september we should have smashed it and got control, and then had a career type targeted approach —— a korea approach. irate career type targeted approach -- a korea approach-— career type targeted approach -- a korea approach. we need to move on. last question- — korea approach. we need to move on. last question. earlier— korea approach. we need to move on. last question. earlier you _ korea approach. we need to move on. last question. earlier you said - korea approach. we need to move on. last question. earlier you said that. last question. earlier you said that when the furlough system was introduced there were no plans for

that, so as areas went into a new tiering system, was there any financial plan properly drawn up and actual modelling done to think about how areas like that would be funded, because obviously there were issues around financial support for example provided to manchester, where the government was given £8 per person to help support that region. so in preparing for the tiering system, where their thoughts about how this would affect individuals, business and the regions that were going under lockdown? 50. and the regions that were going under lockdown?— and the regions that were going under lockdown? ., , under lockdown? so, in a nutshell, i would say that _ under lockdown? so, in a nutshell, i would say that the _ under lockdown? so, in a nutshell, i would say that the treasury - under lockdown? so, in a nutshell, i would say that the treasury did - under lockdown? so, in a nutshell, i would say that the treasury did its i would say that the treasury did its best in a very, very difficult situation, but the treasury had to deal with the fact that number ten's policy was constantly shifting on material and where the boundaries were and the prime minister's conversations with specific people,

so the whole thing was just so fast moving and chaotic that there was never... in a nutshell, no. there is not a kind of here it is, we got an exact plan, we know how we're going to deal with all these different local areas. that hadn't been worked out in the summer, and therefore it was all kind of bodged together in the autumn, and in an environment where the policy was having to be created, the implementation was having to be bodged together and the prime minister was constantly changing his mind about this area or that area, or harder here or less hard there, so the treasury were kind of constantly playing catch up on it all. we need to move on. is it a very brief... , ., ., ., ., , brief... does that mean areas essentially — brief... does that mean areas essentially numbers - brief... does that mean areas essentially numbers were - brief... does that mean areasj essentially numbers were just decided — essentially numbers were just decided out of somebody's,

randomly... decided out of somebody's, randomly. . .— decided out of somebody's, randoml .,, . ., , randomly... there was definite crazy randomness — randomly... there was definite crazy randomness in _ randomly... there was definite crazy randomness in terms _ randomly. .. there was definite crazy randomness in terms of— randomly... there was definite crazy randomness in terms of how - randomly... there was definite crazy randomness in terms of how many i randomly... there was definite crazy i randomness in terms of how many was apportioned and decisions that did not make sense. correct.- apportioned and decisions that did not make sense. correct. thank you mr cummings- _ not make sense. correct. thank you mr cummings. you _ not make sense. correct. thank you mr cummings. you have _ not make sense. correct. thank you mr cummings. you have indicated i not make sense. correct. thank you i mr cummings. you have indicated that you think the government were slow off the mark after the advice was given in september that we needed to consider a second national lockdown. turning to my own constituency along with the greater greater manchester was placed into tier 2 restrictions, and then moved into tier 3 restrictions. do you think the government was acting quick enough to raise the tears restrictions in areas where there was an obvious increase in cases? if not, why not? why would you advocate this tier

system? why would you advocate this tier s stem? , , ., , , system? the simple answer is, i will take the second _ system? the simple answer is, i will take the second question _ system? the simple answer is, i will take the second question first, - system? the simple answer is, i will take the second question first, as i l take the second question first, as i explained earlier on, the whole... the whole point was to try and shift from a world in which you have got no real data and no real understanding in march and no real testing, and therefore are forced to have national measures for everything, to a world in which you have got good testing, data and you can good be hyper targeted, the way that they are in successful east asian countries. that was the approach we were trying to take. that was definitely the right approach to take after all that is with the countries who have been more successful have done it. the kind of direction was correct. it was just that like lots of things, the thinking was done to late and operationally, it was not done well.

i would agree with some operational inconsistencies. in liverpool when they went into tier 3, personal care facilities like james, stayed opening greater manchester. who built that into the model? i opening greater manchester. who built that into the model?- built that into the model? i don't know, built that into the model? i don't know. l'm _ built that into the model? i don't know, i'm afraid. _ built that into the model? i don't know, i'm afraid. very _ built that into the model? i don't know, i'm afraid. very quickly, i built that into the model? i don't know, i'm afraid. very quickly, itj know, i'm afraid. very quickly, it sa s that know, i'm afraid. very quickly, it says that you _ know, i'm afraid. very quickly, it says that you gave _ know, i'm afraid. very quickly, it says that you gave a _ know, i'm afraid. very quickly, it says that you gave a lot - know, i'm afraid. very quickly, it says that you gave a lot of - know, i'm afraid. very quickly, itj says that you gave a lot of advice during this entire process and according to you, so it was disregarded. why did you stay on? if you had the opportunity to be a whistle—blower rather, without a whistle, why did he use not stay out of government earlier and call out what you saw as these egregious breaches? i what you saw as these egregious breaches? ., ., ,., ., breaches? i thought about it a few times, disgusted _ breaches? i thought about it a few times, disgusted with _ breaches? i thought about it a few times, disgusted with senior- breaches? i thought about it a few. times, disgusted with senior people, disgusted with the cabinet secretary and others. discussed it with. these decisions can be difficult and i had watched the march situation and

watched the march situation and watched how he decided he wished he had never done lockdown, and i thought i was extremely tempted to go in the summer. various people said to me the autumn is going to be a disaster. he is in complete let it rip mode, open everything up, open the beaches, you got to stay and try and control the shopping trolley or else god knows what will happen. part of the problem was people thought that like in 2019, a lot of people thought i had a lot of influence over the prime minister and a lot of things he would do what i said. whilst that had been the case in 2019, from 10pm on election night, that situation changed almost immediately. as i said, i definitely should have gone in september,

without any shadow of a doubt. the reason i didn't was that it was clear we were heading for another disaster and there was going to be another set of meetings and i thought maybe i will be able to force this through.— force this through. irrespective what people — force this through. irrespective what people thought _ force this through. irrespective what people thought of - force this through. irrespective what people thought of your. what people thought of your influence, you must have assumed you didn't have the influence you thought you did. you said as much after 10pm on december 12. the logical thing would have been to take an alternative course of action? �* , ~ �* take an alternative course of action? a ,, �* ., action? as i said, i think i'm half auareein action? as i said, i think i'm half agreeing with — action? as i said, i think i'm half agreeing with you, _ action? as i said, i think i'm half agreeing with you, i _ action? as i said, i think i'm half agreeing with you, i should - action? as i said, i think i'm half agreeing with you, i should have j agreeing with you, i should have gonein agreeing with you, i should have gone in september.— agreeing with you, i should have gone in september. what would the outcome have _ gone in september. what would the outcome have been _ gone in september. what would the outcome have been if— gone in september. what would the outcome have been if you _ gone in september. what would the outcome have been if you had? - gone in september. what would the outcome have been if you had? i. outcome have been if you had? i don't know. as i said, it was one of those gamble that was worth doing because my relations with him were broken, at the latest i was going to stay until friday the 18th of december so we're only talking about 12 weeks. if i gambled and said i

will basically call a press conference and load testing sky—high and then he had caved and done it, then tens of thousands of people would now still be alive and we could have avoided the whole horror of the delays in the variants and christmas and the nightmare the country has gone through. in the first quarter of this year. as i tried to say, i think i made the wrong decision and i apologise for that. . ~ wrong decision and i apologise for that. ., ,, , ., wrong decision and i apologise for that-_ thank _ wrong decision and i apologise for that._ thank you - wrong decision and i apologise for that._ thank you very i wrong decision and i apologise for - that._ thank you very much that. thank you. thank you very much indeed. that. thank you. thank you very much indeed- thank— that. thank you. thank you very much indeed. thank you, _ that. thank you. thank you very much indeed. thank you, mr _ that. thank you. thank you very much indeed. thank you, mr cummings, - that. thank you. thank you very much indeed. thank you, mr cummings, for our time indeed. thank you, mr cummings, for your time today _ indeed. thank you, mr cummings, for your time today and _ indeed. thank you, mr cummings, for your time today and i _ indeed. thank you, mr cummings, for your time today and i really _ your time today and i really appreciated. we have had far longer with you than we ever had to be able to scrutinise the secretary of state or prime minister and i think that is a real problem. moving onto that, i have a few quick questions. you accuse matt hancock of lying repeatedly. will you publish the

evidence publicly today? i will evidence publicly today? i will definitely have _ evidence publicly today? i will definitely have a _ evidence publicly today? i will definitely have a look- evidence publicly today? i will definitely have a look at - evidence publicly today? i will definitely have a look at evidence that i have got. i think in general, it will be better, it's better not to get into the business of publishing peoples private messages in whatsapp and they don't want to embarrass and... some of these people are in position now and publishing messages from the cabinet secretary is a very big step. what i think should happen, far better than me randomly throwing whatsapp messages on the internet is that you, the mp5, should force the government... mps have the power to force the government. to face this reality and discuss the things i have discussed today. you have the power to do that and what should happen is that the mp5 force the situation. taste happen is that the mps force the situation. ~ ., ., ,., | situation. we have that power... i do think it's _ situation. we have that power... i do think it's important _ situation. we have that power... i do think it's important that - situation. we have that power... i do think it's important that if - do think it's important that if serious — do think it's important that if serious accusations is made that should _ serious accusations is made that should be — serious accusations is made that should be corroborated after the hearing. — should be corroborated after the hearing, there are other things that can hang _ hearing, there are other things that can hang in — hearing, there are other things that can hang in the air, a think that a

specific— can hang in the air, a think that a specific requirement.— specific requirement. perhaps it could be evidence _ specific requirement. perhaps it could be evidence given - specific requirement. perhaps it could be evidence given to - specific requirement. perhaps it could be evidence given to the i could be evidence given to the committee and not publish on the internet? i’m committee and not publish on the internet? �* , . ., internet? i'm sure the committee will find a way _ internet? i'm sure the committee will find a way to _ internet? i'm sure the committee will find a way to receive... - internet? i'm sure the committee will find a way to receive... i'm i will find a way to receive... i'm ha - will find a way to receive... i'm happy to _ will find a way to receive... i'm happy to discuss _ will find a way to receive... i“n happy to discuss that process. also, i have to take some legal advice on the whole thing as well. public inquiry and what the... i think that people like the former cabinet secretary and others should be here in the seat like me under oath, explaining what happened and like me, seeing what we think we got right and wrong.— me, seeing what we think we got right and wrong. thank you. moving on to procurement, _ right and wrong. thank you. moving on to procurement, you _ right and wrong. thank you. moving on to procurement, you mentionedl right and wrong. thank you. moving | on to procurement, you mentioned it several times being aorta cannot fit for purpose and something you wanted to change before the pandemic. that falls under the cabinet office. do you think michael gove is culpable in any of the chaos that you have described around ppe procurement or any of the contracts that had been dished out around covid and response

to covid? i dished out around covid and response to covid? ., �* ~' dished out around covid and response to covid? ., �* ,, ., , to covid? i don't think really that... michael— to covid? i don't think really that... michael gove - to covid? i don't think really that... michael gove had - to covid? i don't think really that... michael gove had a i to covid? i don't think really - that... michael gove had a huge amount of responsibility in a sense. there are officials in the cabinet office who were in charge of certain aspects of this, procurement... procurement is notjust in centrally from the cabinet office. every department is running its own procurement operation. so what happened during the covid crisis is that some parts of procurement exercise inside dh were pulled out of dh and given to the cabinet office to run. that is correct. but it's not as if... it's not like michael gove is in charge of government procurement. he’s michael gove is in charge of government procurement. he's a minister responsible _ government procurement. he's a minister responsible for - government procurement. he's a minister responsible for the - minister responsible for the department in government which is responsible for procurement. are you

saying that he shares no burden of blame in the situation at all? i’m blame in the situation at all? i'm sure he would see like all of us involved, like all senior... i don't think this single senior person involved would say there haven't been serious mistakes and i'm sure michael would say the same, that he made mistakes on it. at the heart of... we went into the crisis with the wrong system and everyone had to kind of barge away through that. the issue of kind of barge away through that. he: issue of lockdowns. who kind of barge away through that. ti9 issue of lockdowns. who in the cabinet was a block or delay on the second lockdown? 0r cabinet was a block or delay on the second lockdown? or was a blewett lockdown in general? i second lockdown? or was a blewett lockdown in general?— lockdown in general? i don't remember _ lockdown in general? i don't remember any _ lockdown in general? i don't remember any cabinet - lockdown in general? i don'tj remember any cabinet being lockdown in general? i don't - remember any cabinet being involved in the discussion.— in the discussion. there was no discussion _ in the discussion. there was no discussion about _ in the discussion. there was no discussion about the _ in the discussion. there was no discussion about the second . discussion about the second lockdown? it was entirely the prime minister? hat lockdown? it was entirely the prime minister? :, :, lockdown? it was entirely the prime minister? :, ., ., minister? not in a meaningfulway. i never attended _ minister? not in a meaningfulway. i never attended cabinet _ minister? not in a meaningfulway. i never attended cabinet in _ minister? not in a meaningfulway. i never attended cabinet in 2020. - minister? not in a meaningfulway. i never attended cabinet in 2020. i i never attended cabinet in 2020. i try to keep out of the political, i

didn't attend in a way the cabinet works its largely an exercise, so i save my time, didn't want to go. i didn't also at attend pmqs meetings. so they may have been one of the potemkin cabinet meetings about lockdown. but i was in the meetings where it was actually decided and it was just the prime minister and, where it was actually decided and it wasjust the prime minister and, the prime minister, cabinet secretary, patrick vallance, chris whitty, me, other officials arguing the stuff out and it was the prime minister was my decision. there may be a cabinet meeting but that was just for show, cabinet meeting but that was just forshow, not cabinet meeting but that was just for show, not a relevant part of the decision—making process. unless i completely forgot some cabinet that was significant.— was significant. thank you. you told the committee _ was significant. thank you. you told the committee that _ was significant. thank you. you told the committee that the _ was significant. thank you. you told the committee that the chancellor. the committee that the chancellor rishi sunak was totally supportive of lockdown in 2020. that's pretty

interesting statement and endorsement from you, given that you have been pretty scathing of other ministers. the chancellor provide scientific evidence or medical advice to back up the safety of his scheme which literally had his name on it, eat out to help out? i scheme which literally had his name on it, eat out to help out?- on it, eat out to help out? i wasn't really involved _ on it, eat out to help out? i wasn't really involved with _ on it, eat out to help out? i wasn't really involved with the _ on it, eat out to help out? i wasn't really involved with the eat - on it, eat out to help out? i wasn't really involved with the eat out i on it, eat out to help out? i wasn't really involved with the eat out to i really involved with the eat out to help out thing sol really involved with the eat out to help out thing so i don't have very much useful to say about it. just for complete clarity on what i'm saying about the chancellor and lockdown, there have been stories saying that he tried to, he was a kind of block or try to throw mud in the gears that. first locked in. what i was saying was their work powerful voices in the treasury who were seeing the real danger is economic and we should not do this, but in the meetings i had, the chancellor never tried to stop that happening and in fact when i was

through with him camp, went through with him plan b, given this thing its iowa wave one or wave two, let's shift plan b and try to build a stuff and escape, the chancellor was completely supportive and iota have said earlier and forgot, one of the chaotic architects was the chancellor's chief economic adviser. he worked with ben mounir and mark warner those stories are the chancellor was extremely sceptical of what the department of health were saying. he could appreciate my augment of when i was coming from. his argument was there was no plan for the department of health of what we do next, secondly we cannot be any situation where we just consulate go from one side to another. eat out to help

out, getting people back to work, lockdown again! circuit breaker, stay at home. then three weeks again, the prime minister... we had again, the prime minister... we had a discussion, boris said you do two weeks and we tell people to go back. the chancellor said quite rightly it doesn't work like that. if you see people now we are going to have to do another lockdown, you have to realise a lot of people will conclude that the government has lost control of the situation. then they told everyone not to work from home. then telling people there will be another lockdown. a lot of businesses will say that sick to the spring and they will shut their doors. you need to that was the core... what the chancellor was begging for was finally a consistent plan that we

could stick to for more than two days without being knocked off course by the telegraph. the reports from september _ course by the telegraph. the reports from september 2020 _ course by the telegraph. the reports from september 2020 that _ course by the telegraph. the reports from september 2020 that the i course by the telegraph. the reports| from september 2020 that the prime minister did not oppose a new lockdown over fears that rishi sunak would quit are untrue, are they? completely, 100%, iwas would quit are untrue, are they? completely, 100%, i was there, the chancellor never threatened to quit and he did not tell me at the time, i had private meetings with him about the situation and the difficulties. he said to me, for god sake, please don't quit. i know you want to but don't. that story is definitely false. he was definitely not throwing around resignation threats. he was desperate for a plan that was coherent and the government could stick to and like lots of us was completely at his wits end. some eo - le was completely at his wits end. some people might — was completely at his wits end. some people might ask _ was completely at his wits end. some people might ask whether _ was completely at his wits end. fine people might ask whether you are hedging your bets lately with an eye

on future administration run by rishi sunak. is that... out of... l rishi sunak. is that... out of... i think everyone from my wife to everybody in westminster and whitehall will agree that the less everyone hears of me in the future, the better. . ~ everyone hears of me in the future, the better-— the better. thank you. why do you think the government _ the better. thank you. why do you think the government are - the better. thank you. why do you think the government are blocking | think the government are blocking the covid inquiry now and you think the covid inquiry now and you think the hundred and 28,000 people that have lost their lives and their loved ones —— 100 28,000, deserve answers now? they deserve answers now it's genuinely terrible the idea of trying to pump this off before, until after the next election. when you have a crisis this bad, you got to face reality. the fact the government... it's beyond absurd we are in a situation where millions of

people watched the government have an official policy last march and now number ten is trying to claim it didn't exist. if they have lost the plot that badly there, what on earth else is going on in that building? this is quite specific. you have spoken today about the unwillingness to learn from east and southeast asia countries because people were saying and i quote, "asians all do what they are told so it won't work here." who said that and how much do you think that this outdated racist stereotype contributed to the numbers of deaths in the uk? l stereotype contributed to the numbers of deaths in the uk? i don't want to get — numbers of deaths in the uk? i don't want to get into _ numbers of deaths in the uk? i don't want to get into quoting _ numbers of deaths in the uk? i don't want to get into quoting things i numbers of deaths in the uk? i don't want to get into quoting things like l want to get into quoting things like that, because i think it would be unfair and that, because i think it would be unfairand unfair on some that, because i think it would be unfair and unfair on some of the scientists and others involved in it. it's undoubtedly the case that there was a general view... i wrote about this in 2014 about the

department for education, there was a general problem in whitehall which that people don't want to look at what's happening. there is a specific issue about thinking that we can't learn from east asia and that has been around for many, many years. i think a lot of senior people would openly admit to it. we all know the conversations were in january and february. i have whatsapp messages 20 and all kinds of people. the view was that the public will not accept lockdown and they will not accept the kind of surveillance, the whole test and trace infrastructure. my argument and others argument was actually, if you look at somewhere like taiwan, you've got a very, really a very small but serious curtailment of civil liberties. in another country, your quarantine, they don't have a

joke system like we do, you are in a hotel, its patrol, you will not leave, forget it. it's ultra serious. but if you walk around taiwan, i got friends who live there, life is basically normal. if you are faced with the choices of massive wave killing hundreds of thousands or that, i think almost everybody in this country would say let's go down that route and that is the route that we should have started going down injanuary. we started going down injanuary. we started to think about that in mid—march but it took a few months for that new thinking to kind of become, develop into real policy and operational capabilities and in certain ways. you don't change big cultural values like that in quickly and it will take time for whitehall to adapt. mi; and it will take time for whitehall to adat. y .,, and it will take time for whitehall to adat. g , ., and it will take time for whitehall toadat. g , ., . to adapt. my last question, you have described the —

to adapt. my last question, you have described the pm's _ to adapt. my last question, you have described the pm's running - to adapt. my last question, you have described the pm's running of - to adapt. my last question, you have l described the pm's running of number ten is chaotic, incompetent. do you think borisjohnson is a fit and proper person to get us through this pandemic? mo. thank you. thank you pandemic? no. thank you. thank you very much indeed. just reflecting on the autumn— very much indeed. just reflecting on the autumn and the winter. we are approaching this with hindsight. clearly. — approaching this with hindsight. clearly, as we do everything. what we do _ clearly, as we do everything. what we do know— clearly, as we do everything. what we do know that happened was that there _ we do know that happened was that there was— we do know that happened was that there was a kent variant that has contributed most of the deaths since the summer. but we did not know about— the summer. but we did not know about it _ the summer. but we did not know about it in — the summer. but we did not know about it in september. in the evidence _ about it in september. in the evidence to the sayings of the committee, the chair of the nerve tank come — committee, the chair of the nerve tank come on the 23rd of december, was asked _ tank come on the 23rd of december, was asked if— tank come on the 23rd of december, was asked if the said, ithink said, i think we have, said, ithink we have, we said, i think we have, we sent said, ithink we have, we sent a said, i think we have, we sent a first— said, i think we have, we sent a first note — said, i think we have, we sent a first note raising significant concern _ first note raising significant concern in december and on the 19th,

people _ concern in december and on the 19th, people scratch measures were put in place _ people scratch measures were put in place this _ people scratch measures were put in place. this is at odds with the repeated _ place. this is at odds with the repeated cycle of delay in an action that you _ repeated cycle of delay in an action that you are describing. as it not? i that you are describing. as it not? i don't _ that you are describing. as it not? idon't think— that you are describing. as it not? i don't think that's right, no. the specifics about kent may have come up, the variants or being discussed in this specimen september. scientists said to me one of the reason it's going to get out of control is that we will probably have variants. if i knew about it in september, other people were definitely talking about it. well before then. mat definitely talking about it. well before then._ definitely talking about it. well beforethen. ., ., ,, . . ., ., before then. not a specific variant? it was a concern _ before then. not a specific variant? it was a concern about _ before then. not a specific variant? it was a concern about variant - before then. not a specific variant? it was a concern about variant in . it was a concern about variant in general? — it was a concern about variant in general? i — it was a concern about variant in ueneral? .., �* it was a concern about variant in ueneral? .. �* ., ., general? i can't with the detail of my conversations _ general? i can't with the detail of my conversations now _ general? i can't with the detail of my conversations now on - general? i can't with the detail ofj my conversations now on variants general? i can't with the detail of - my conversations now on variants but it certainly case, i had specific rulings from scientists scientists and notjust any old scientists, scientists who had been repeatedly

proved right, so i took what they said particularly carefully. i was looking back over the whole thing and doing a scorecard of who has been right about this and who has been right about this and who has been wrong. the people who will write about it are said to me in september watch out for this variant thank, it could suddenly get very nasty, you could have really, really serious problem with it. the same people who were right about that in september, the reason i brought the issue up recently, publicly, was because the same people were saying the same thing injanuary, saying the same thing injanuary, saying the government is not acting properly. we still don't have a properly. we still don't have a proper border policy. committee has taken extensive _ proper border policy. committee has taken extensive edit _ proper border policy. committee has taken extensive edit evidence - proper border policy. committee has taken extensive edit evidence on - taken extensive edit evidence on variants — taken extensive edit evidence on variants and you will now variants arise _ variants and you will now variants arise att— variants and you will now variants arise all the — variants and you will now variants arise all the time in their thousands, that's the nature of viruses — thousands, that's the nature of viruses so— thousands, that's the nature of viruses. so given that we were in september— viruses. so given that we were in september now have the benefit of hindsight _ september now have the benefit of hindsight that tells us we know about— hindsight that tells us we know about a —

hindsight that tells us we know about a particularly dangerous variant, — about a particularly dangerous variant, infectious variant, variant, _ variant, infectious variant, variant, we know that we have vaccines— variant, we know that we have vaccines that, in september october, were not— vaccines that, in september october, were not approved for use. would it have been— were not approved for use. would it have been reasonable based on a generalised concern about variance, not a _ generalised concern about variance, not a specific concern that one had been _ not a specific concern that one had been discovered that was very infectious, isn't to impose lockdown restrictions— infectious, isn't to impose lockdown restrictions without any particular intelligence as to variant that required _ intelligence as to variant that required it, would that not have been _ required it, would that not have been a — required it, would that not have been a recipe for permanent lockdown?— been a recipe for permanent lockdown? ~ , , . ., �*, been a recipe for permanent lockdown? ~ ,, . ., �*, ., lockdown? with respect, that's not at all the situation _ lockdown? with respect, that's not at all the situation we _ lockdown? with respect, that's not at all the situation we face. - lockdown? with respect, that's not at all the situation we face. in - at all the situation we face. in september, they argue it was not about variants it was about the existing case on the point was we were going to have to lockdown in five weeks because of the existing variant. it was not about... the

arguing in september was not lockdown pre—emptive because of variance, the argument was in september, the date on current hospitalisations and cases, icu, it's all completely clear you're going to have to lockdown at the end of october to stop the nhs being washed away again. the whole lesson of the situation is... there is only two logical positions. deep breath, forget it, we will let the waves crash and it's going to be what it's going to be. the other option, we're not going to do that, that inconceivable, the risks are too high. therefore we have to lockdown. as soon as you make the decision that we have to lockdown, that's what exponential curves are, the faster you act, then the faster you get on top of it, the faster and exponentially the case, that means you don't have to have it in place

for as long, or be as deep and everything else. that's what the number ten data team was saying to the prime minister in september and what the chief scientist and medical officer was saying. nothing to do with variants. that's exactly what happened. when we came back and looked at the data it was basically what had been read out five weeks earlier. that's why the prime minister was so enraged because he knew me and others were looking at him seeing... you were told. kathleen cuts read this out to you and at and there you're doing it again and another logjam is going to be worse, destruction will be worse and that means thousands of people have caught it in the five weeks who are now going to die. and we're doing lockdown anyway and were going to crash the economy more anyway. before we had vaccines that have been _ before we had vaccines that have been approved, quite a long time before _ been approved, quite a long time before they were approved, with that rise in—

before they were approved, with that rise in infections, what your advice would _ rise in infections, what your advice would have — rise in infections, what your advice would have been would—be to engage in a series— would have been would—be to engage in a series of locks institute infections are low enough level for an indeterminate amount of time? | an indeterminate amount of time? i left an indeterminate amount of time? left before an indeterminate amount of time? i left before conversations happen. i had some conversations about variance in september at the latest, possibly even obvious. my view was in september if you whack it hard now, we get on top of it. either member at that time, we the process, a very large part of each day working on the mass testing. these things balanced out and i said to the pm, we have totally screwed it up the pm, we have totally screwed it up and should have been doing this since march, but didn't realise untiljuly. we are pushing everything we can behind it. the cabinet secretary is doing brilliant, pushing behind it. if we

smash it in september we got a chance when we come out to, out with millions of these tests and then the game can be different and the tests can help in terms of dealing with the variants that was this fundamental argument in september. if we get on that in september and really got control of it, you would not have seen this great spike which we onlyjust not have seen this great spike which we only just started not have seen this great spike which we onlyjust started sea come down in october and he said we got to come out of it, can't keep this going any more and of course the variant kicks off and from a very high level. if we crushed in september by the time the variants came along, we would be fundamentally in a different position and that was, this is not hindsight. james phillips and others, patrick vallance were saying this argument in september. i

others, patrick vallance were saying this argument in september.- this argument in september. i think we should conclude. _ this argument in september. i think we should conclude. this _ this argument in september. i think we should conclude. this is - this argument in september. i think we should conclude. this is a - we should conclude. this is a lessons — we should conclude. this is a lessons learnt inquiry as we said some _ lessons learnt inquiry as we said some hours ago at the beginning and we have _ some hours ago at the beginning and we have taken a lot of evidence from a lot of— we have taken a lot of evidence from a lot of different people, this is an ultimate session before we write our report — an ultimate session before we write our report. just reflecting back on your time — our report. just reflecting back on your time in— our report. just reflecting back on your time in downing street dealing with a _ your time in downing street dealing with a pandemic, what are you would learn _ with a pandemic, what are you would learn that— with a pandemic, what are you would learn that as — with a pandemic, what are you would learn that as in the way of lessons can be _ learn that as in the way of lessons can be applied?— learn that as in the way of lessons can be applied? there is a general --rincile can be applied? there is a general principle of _ can be applied? there is a general principle of making _ can be applied? there is a general principle of making things - can be applied? there is a general principle of making things like - can be applied? there is a general| principle of making things like sage and scientific advice more open. i think and scientific advice more open. i thin r , and scientific advice more open. i thin , ., and scientific advice more open. i thin ,., ., , , ., think there is an obvious question about responsibility. _ think there is an obvious question about responsibility. a _ think there is an obvious question about responsibility. a really - about responsibility. a really fundamental question about how the british state works, power between ministers and officials and who is actually in charge of things. you can naturally form teams in normal government business, the assumption is we can alljust put up with, live with a bit of friction to have this kind of division of responsibility and muddle along. but it's

completely fatal when you're dealing with releases use thing. because when you're dealing with really serious thing you need to get a what the goal as who is responsible for what, the whitehall culture of having things deliberately diffused is intrinsically hostile to high—performance management. if you put bill gates himself, any great people from history who really understand how to run these kind of teams, all of them would see the first time you put them in the job, how do i manage that? if i can't pick the team and can't bring people in, can fire people. what if there is one change can make in terms of the civil service, there should be the civil service, there should be the hr system should change so that all appointments with a tiny fraction of national security oddities which are not really relevant, mentally, 99% of civil servantjobs should be open by default. the competition for them

should be open by default. we have so many brilliant people in this country. we have a civil service system which literally puts a massive barrier and says were going to recruit these things internally. like a caste system. it's completely crackers way of doing things. again, during this we had to show out and get external people to come in and provide all kinds of that shouldn't be something you do because there is a crisis. the british system should be open so we can get the best people in the country to the bestjobs. now, i know from conversations that there are lots of senior people who agree with me, but parts of whitehall will fight to the death to stop a culture of open by defaultjobs, but i think if you are going to make one change in the system, that's one of the most crucial. 0n the other thing is

really thinking hard about incentives, because people are not incentivised to tell the truth, they are not incentivised to think through hard problems, they are not incentivised for operational delivery. people are incentivised to keep their heads down, to back up the system when it fails, and the culture is that senior people who are constantly appointed to jobs on the basis of, are they a good chap, are they not going to rock the boat? but actually being really, really good at yourjob and operational delivery when it counts is not taken seriously, everyone wants to have stupid words like strategy in their job titles, but the people who actually get things done are not respected, often, inside the system. so that's a huge point, and that connects finally to i would say the culture, the meeting culture of how we do things. over and over again in this crisis, we were just about get to the point where the crucial thing

would be exposed, and some senior person, in terror, would say let's take this off—line. and i would sometime shout no, let's not take it off—line, let's keep it online, we're just almost about to get to the bloody point! but you've got this culture constantly in which things are aligned in a way, let's not embarrass anybody, let's not get to the heart of the problem really, and again, that is normal in whitehall, but when you are dealing with a problem like this, it is a complete and utter disaster. and with a problem like this, it is a complete and utter disaster. and you have done it — complete and utter disaster. and you have done it yourself? _ complete and utter disaster. and you have done it yourself? we _ complete and utter disaster. and you have done it yourself? we were - complete and utter disaster. and you have done it yourself? we were all. have done it yourself? we were all in these ludicrous _ have done it yourself? we were all in these ludicrous meetings - have done it yourself? we were all in these ludicrous meetings with l in these ludicrous meetings with people saying, take it off—line, take it off—line, take it off—line. jeremy. take it off-line, take it off-line. jerem . , ., take it off-line, take it off-line. jerem. , ., ., ., ~ take it off-line, take it off-line. jerem. , ., ., ., , jeremy. first of all thank you very much for giving — jeremy. first of all thank you very much for giving evidence - jeremy. first of all thank you very much for giving evidence today i jeremy. first of all thank you very | much for giving evidence today for over seven hours, that is really appreciated. ijust want over seven hours, that is really appreciated. i just want to ask you finally about one of your last comments, that the prime minister is not fit and proper to do hisjob, and ijust want not fit and proper to do hisjob, and i just want to ask you about your own record, about which you

have been at honest today. when you think you were someone —— admirably honest, you are someone who attended sage, who took a great interest in science but it wasn't until march 11 that you advise the prime minister we needed to change direction. it then took more than two months after that before we had a test entry system set up, you then didn't win the argument for the circuit breaker in september, we didn't have weekly testing of nhs staff until the end of november. applying exactly the same standards, do you think you did yourjob in a fit and proper way last year? i yourjob in a fit and proper way last year?— yourjob in a fit and proper way last ear? ~' , ., ., , last year? i think there is no doubt whatsoever— last year? i think there is no doubt whatsoever that _ last year? i think there is no doubt whatsoever that there _ last year? i think there is no doubt whatsoever that there are - last year? i think there is no doubt whatsoever that there are many i whatsoever that there are many thousands of people in this country who could have done myjob much better than me. that is unarguable. you have been very critical of many individuals. — you have been very critical of many individuals, and indeed the apparatus of the state. asjeremy

said, _ apparatus of the state. asjeremy said. the — apparatus of the state. asjeremy said, the beginning of the hearing, you were _ said, the beginning of the hearing, you were very clear that the advice that sage — you were very clear that the advice that sage had given was advised that was then— that sage had given was advised that was then followed by the government. you hadn't _ was then followed by the government. you hadn't attended the cobra meetings or some of the... with meetings or some of the. .. with resect, meetings or some of the. .. with respect. i _ meetings or some of the. .. with respect, i didn't _ meetings or some of the. .. with respect, i didn't exactly - meetings or some of the... in respect, i didn't exactly say that, i said i couldn't remember exactly what meetings i attended. it is possible i did attend some of the cobra meetings in february, but i was certainly paying close attention to it and not attending some of the cobra meetings chaired by hancock is not a sign of not taking some things seriously. but not a sign of not taking some things seriousl . �* ~ , ., seriously. but i think you will acce -t seriously. but i think you will accept from _ seriously. but i think you will accept from some _ seriously. but i think you will accept from some of - seriously. but i think you will accept from some of the - seriously. but i think you will - accept from some of the evidence we have heard _ accept from some of the evidence we have heard that you could have, should _ have heard that you could have, should have, ithink, in yourview done _ should have, ithink, in yourview done more — should have, ithink, in yourview done more to assert the case that you became convinced of earlier? undoubtedly the case. 30, you became convinced of earlier? undoubtedly the case.— undoubtedly the case. so, we all 0 erate undoubtedly the case. so, we all operate through _ undoubtedly the case. so, we all operate through hindsight. - undoubtedly the case. so, we all operate through hindsight. last i operate through hindsight. last spring, — operate through hindsight. last spring, you edited your blog to

better— spring, you edited your blog to better be — spring, you edited your blog to better be able to claim foresight with the — better be able to claim foresight with the benefit of hindsight. no, that's not- -- _ with the benefit of hindsight. no, that's not... do _ with the benefit of hindsight. no, that's not... do you _ with the benefit of hindsight. no, that's not... do you think - with the benefit of hindsight. no, that's not... do you think you're i that's not... do you think you're fallin: that's not... do you think you're falling into _ that's not... do you think you're falling into that _ that's not... do you think you're falling into that trap _ that's not... do you think you're falling into that trap which - that's not... do you think you're falling into that trap which is - that's not... do you think you're falling into that trap which is a l falling into that trap which is a very— falling into that trap which is a very human trap here? with respect, that's not what _ very human trap here? with respect, that's not what i _ very human trap here? with respect, that's not what i did. _ very human trap here? with respect, that's not what i did. i _ very human trap here? with respect, that's not what i did. i think - that's not what i did. i think that... i think that, when you have these kind of groupthink episodes, look, kind of by definition, the reason why that happened is because you have certain kind of ideas take hold, and you have institutional setting in which people who understand why those things are wrong are kind of excluded from the process, and that's what happened. the lesson of that is, as i said earlier on, is openness, because the people who alerted me to this were not people inside the system, it was people like mark warner who came to

me and said, hang on a second, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with this. and i think that's the scale of the problem, and the nature of it, as well. if this had been exposed, even a few weeks earlier than it was, then the whole story, i think, earlier than it was, then the whole story, ithink, would have earlier than it was, then the whole story, i think, would have been different. i did go to people, i did try to get outside help. this was of course portrayed in the media as terrible cummings tries to influence sage and why is he even attending sage and why is he even attending sage and why is he even attending sage and everything else, but i took the view that i ought to listen to sage meetings in february, i want to try and understand this as well as i could do, i could sense that the communications between sage, department of health, cabinet office and background to number ten were failing, was my sense. that sense proved to be correct, it clearly was

massively and radically failing. but if i had gone to people earlier, if i had gone to outside people earlier, then i would have realised earlier, then i would have realised earlier that we were all making a big mistake. i5 earlier that we were all making a big mistake-— earlier that we were all making a bi mistake. , . ., g , big mistake. is my co-chairjeremy hunt said. — big mistake. is my co-chairjeremy hunt said. you _ big mistake. is my co-chairjeremy hunt said, you have _ big mistake. is my co-chairjeremy hunt said, you have been - big mistake. is my co-chairjeremy hunt said, you have been very - hunt said, you have been very generous— hunt said, you have been very generous with your time, this is a lessons _ generous with your time, this is a lessons learned enquiry, we will in two weeks — lessons learned enquiry, we will in two weeks tomorrow here from the health _ two weeks tomorrow here from the health secretary. there are various points _ health secretary. there are various points that — health secretary. there are various points that you have agreed you will follow _ points that you have agreed you will follow up _ points that you have agreed you will follow up in writing with the committee, so we look forward to that and _ committee, so we look forward to that and then we will reflect on all the evidence you have given today when _ the evidence you have given today when it _ the evidence you have given today when it comes to a report in parliament. that concludes the session— parliament. that concludes the session of— parliament. that concludes the session of the joint committee. order, — session of the joint committee. order, order. session of the 'oint committee. order, order.— session of the 'oint committee. order, order. studio: that was a session that _ order, order. studio: that was a session that started _ order, order. studio: that was a session that started at _ order, order. studio: that was a session that started at 9:30am i order, order. studio: that was a i session that started at 9:30am this morning, and they have only had just over half an hour's worth of breaks, and all that time dominic cummings,

former top senior adviser to the prime minister who of course resigned last year, just before christmas, given that —— giving that damning account of the way the government handled the early stages of the coronavirus crisis, saying people had died unnecessarily because of its failings. he said the government had failed the public when they needed it most and he apologised for his own actions. let's run through some of that testimony then, shall we? he talked about how people performed disastrously below the standards which the country has a right to expect. he talked about how he was aware of a litany of failings, not really of the things that had gone well, and amongst them, he talked about how people were lions led by donkeys throughout all of this. he gave a great deal of criticism to

the prime minister and also to the health secretary matt hancock, who he said should have been sacked for 15, may be 20 different reasons. he talked about the lack of a broader policy because of the optics of how it would look if you stopped allowing people coming in from certain parts of the world, particularly china and southeast asia in the early stages of a pandemic over a year ago. our political correspondent nick eardley joins us now. gripping stuff, neck, hours and hours of testimony, laying bare what had been going on in government, and how, in dominic cummings's view, the british public were massively let down. yes. cummings's view, the british public were massively let down. yes, seven hours of remarkable _ were massively let down. yes, seven hours of remarkable evidence - were massively let down. yes, seven hours of remarkable evidence that i hours of remarkable evidence that really got to the heart of what dominic cummings thinks has gone wrong in government over the past year or so with the pandemic

response. there are three things in particular, there are so much there, we can talk aborted all afternoon, but there are three in particular that really —— can talk about it all afternoon. but the first one was dominic cummings saying that tens of thousands of people died in the uk who didn't have to. he said that in the context of talking about why there should be a public enquiry soon. he didn't delve into exactly how he reached that conclusion, but a clear, damning indictment from borisjohnson's former senior boris johnson's former senior adviser that he borisjohnson's former senior adviser that he thinks tens of thousands of people died unnecessarily because of the way the pandemic was handled. the second thing was that he thinks that by october last year, it was clear that the prime minister was unfit for office. now, that is largely down to the fact that boris johnson didn't the fact that borisjohnson didn't agree to a the fact that boris johnson didn't

agree to a second lockdown earlier. mr cummings was making clear that many people in government thought in september that another lockdown was needed, including, he said, the health secretary, including some of the top scientist but borisjohnson wasn't for budging on that, and it wasn't for budging on that, and it was that that led mr cummings to conclude that mrjohnson was unfit for office, something he said a couple of times. the third thing, which is quite remarkable, and which i think we are going to hear a lot more about over the course of the evening and the next few days is that mr cummings said that there were 15 or 20 reasons why the health secretary matt hancock should have been sacked for his handling of the pandemic. everything mr cummings claimed from not telling the truth to not dealing with some of the big questions properly. a claim that mr cummings suggest was backed up by others in government, including the cabinet secretary as well. now, we are trying to get in touch with mr

hancock's team to get a more substantive response from number ten than the one we had from boris johnson at pmqs today, and there are many people around westminster who frankly don't have much time for dominic cummings, we think he is a tainted and quite bitter character after his departure from government, but really serious accusations, and they matter, because this is one of they matter, because this is one of the first comprehensive, public accounts we have heard from somebody who was in the room for some of the biggest decisions made in the uk government over the last year, and clearly he thinks a lot of the decisions that were taken were completely wrong.— decisions that were taken were completely wrong. yes, some of the lanauuae completely wrong. yes, some of the language he — completely wrong. yes, some of the language he used. — completely wrong. yes, some of the language he used, that _ completely wrong. yes, some of the language he used, that the - language he used, that the government delayed and was careering around with local lockdowns, talking about how it was completely in character for the government to delay putting india on the red list. when he was asked why he didn't resign sooner, he said he say —— he said he stayed to try and make

things happen. what occurred to me is that yes, we know who is being criticised, mr hancock and also mr johnson, but rishi sunak, the chancellor, and the foreign secretary dominic raab he seemed to protect them from criticism. yes. protect them from criticism. yes, there is very _ protect them from criticism. yes, there is very little _ protect them from criticism. use: there is very little commentary on some of the more controversial treasury decisions, like eat out to help out, which some people have concerns about. mr cummings conveniently didn't seem to remember being part of some of those discussions. likewise, he praised dominic raab, the foreign secretary, for the role that dominic raab took on when borisjohnson was seriously ill in hospital, when he had coronavirus himself in late march last year. but i think what you got overall from mr cummings, whether it was in march last year when he said the government was to slow to realise that its plan wasn't working, be it in september last year when he said that borisjohnson

just wasn't listening to the advice to lockdown, you got a picture painted of a number ten which was pretty chaotic, and at times pretty dysfunctional. there was that remarkable story that mr cummings told about when he says he was calling for an immediate stay at home message about ten days before the first lockdown was brought in across the uk. mr cummings painted that picture of downing street not being able to fully look at some of the data, look at some of the questions being asked about coronavirus because the prime minister's fiance was so interested in a story in the times newspaper about her dog, which she shared with borisjohnson, and also because president trump at the time was talking, mr cummings claimed, about bombing the middle east, and you got the impression there that number ten just wasn't really, in the view of mr cummings anyway, equipped to properly deal with some of the

pressure that was happening at the time. so a really chaotic picture painted at that point. but in many ways some of the more damning comments he made were about the reluctance to go into a second lockdown in september and october last year, when some were calling for a circuit breaker in england. you will remember there was one in wales at the time, and you did get the impression from mr cummings, didn't you, that things were just being made up on the hoof, to try and avoid that second lockdown, and i think borisjohnson is going to face considerable pressure over that, considerable questions over why that policy was developed, why we ended up with some of these last—minute local lockdowns being introduced in certain parts of the country, particularly the north of england, and why he wasn't prepared to listen to some of the advice mr cummings claimed he was getting to go for the full lockdown. i should say that joint committee go for the full lockdown. i should say thatjoint committee session

that we have just seen, all seven hours of it, with mr cummings, matt hancock, the health secretary, is due to appear before that and a couple of weeks as well, and i suspect that will be required viewing as well. for suspect that will be required viewing as well.— suspect that will be required viewin: as well. ., ., viewing as well. for the moment, thank ou viewing as well. for the moment, thank you very — viewing as well. for the moment, thank you very much, _ viewing as well. for the moment, thank you very much, nick - viewing as well. for the moment, | thank you very much, nick eardley viewing as well. for the moment, i thank you very much, nick eardley in westminster, much of course to pick over, we will look now at some other news. two retired police officers and an ex—solicitor accused of altering police statements after the hillsborough disaster have been acquitted. they were accused of trying to minimise the blame on south yorkshire police in the aftermath of the 1989 disaster. mrjustice william davis ruled they had no case to answer. judith moritz reports. hillsborough is a double tragedy. the disaster itself, 96 lives lost when the football terraces became overcrowded at the sheffield wednesday ground. and its aftermath, as fans were unjustly blamed for their own deaths. the families of those who died have spent 32 years fighting forjustice. # walk on, walk on...#. in 2016, they celebrated inquest

verdicts, which found that those who died were unlawfully killed and the fans were not to blame. but now, there will be no convictions for an alleged police cover—up. although your mind is telling you it's going to be thrown . out, it still hurts. you know, 32 years now, and we've campaigned for all this time. - i'm angry at the system in this country that is so morally wrong. because to me, what has gone on today was a cover—up over a cover—up. that's the way i look at it. the former bishop of liverpool, jamesjones, says it's important that victims of other disasters don't have the same long struggle as the hillsborough families. the result of the present proceedings leaves the families wondering about accountability, and especially in the aftermath of the disaster.

my concern is the government should learn from the experiences that the families have endured over the past 32 years. former solicitor peter metcalfe, and former senior police officers donald denton and alan foster, were all charged with perverting the course ofjustice by amending officers' accounts of what happened during the disaster. the case against them has been dropped. this is the former headquarters of the south yorkshire police. back in 1989, officers met here to organise the syp response to the disaster. the police statements ended up being used for three purposes, the public enquiry, the first set of inquests, and the original criminal investigation into hillsborough. the officers had written notes in their pocket books, before writing up their statements. many of the statements were later discovered to have been altered, and some negative comments about the police removed. professor phil scraton found them

inside the reading room at the house of lords. i was overwhelmed. came back to liverpool, with those reviewed and altered statements in my bag. but i also realised that i was sitting on a whole range of material here that i had never envisaged. it was my worst fears had been realised, that it was endemic, that it was institutionalised. though it is not disputed that the statements were changed, the courts found it didn't amount to a crime. the judge accepted that the defendants didn't know the statements were going to be used for anything other than the taylor enquiry, which was not a court of law. for many of the survivors and families of the 96 men, women and children who were unlawfully killed, it will feel like a devastating end

to the fight for justice. judith moritz, bbc news. judith also and judith also explained what the response had been from the defendants. lawyers representing the three defendants came outside court and said that they believed this proved there was no hillsborough cover—up, and that this prosecution was an enormous waste of public money. of public money. jonathan goldberg qc represents peter metcalf, the former south yorkshire police solicitor. my client is grateful that a high courtjudge has held he does not even have a case to answer, at the end of what is said to be the longest and most expensive series of criminal investigations ever mounted in britain. apparently costing into the hundreds of millions of pounds. apparently costing into the hundreds of millions of pounds. hillsborough is probably the most investigated disaster in british history. that money would have been better spent on building new hospitals or schools, perhaps in liverpool. my client is acutely sad about the suffering of the bereaved families.

the crown prosecution service has defended its decision to bring this trial, saying that it was right for a jury to hear the evidence, and has said its decision not to appeal is something it has reached after long consideration. the cps has also pointed the fact that people may say they find it the cps has also pointed to the fact that people may say they find it surprising there is no legal duty on a public authority like the police to stop them from withholding information to a public enquiry, and they say that that is something which should be looked at with scrutiny. that's also, by the way, something which campaigners want now to see a change in the law. they wanted to be called the hillsborough law. mike rainford is the lawyer representing former police officer donald denton — he spoke outside court earlier. the trial, which came to an end just now, with not guilty verdicts

for all defendants, should never have taken place, at all. three men, including our 83—year—old client, have finally been cleared, after years of lies, half—truths, myths, rumours, often repeated in the media, with no critical analysis or research. sadly, the iopc and the cps failed in their duties to apply a higher standard of analysis of the evidence in making the decision to bring you these charges over three years ago. paul harris, solicitor for former police officer alan foster, read a short statement on his behalf. his sympathy today remains as it always has with the families i of those who lost their lives on 15th april 1989 in- the hillsborough tragedy.

such sympathy, though, - cannot be extended to the ipcc, now the iopc, who pursued a man, i now aged 75, of good character, i with weak evidence, designed to fit a predetermined narrative. - this narrative, of an alleged i cover—up, when every document was meticulously preserved i and maintained, was not borne out by the evidence. government ministers have backtracked over travel advice for eight areas worst—hit by the indian covid variant, after a change in guidance led to widespread confusion. the amended advice asks people to minimise travel into and out of bolton, blackburn, kirklees, bedford, burnley, leicester, hounslow and north tyneside. catherine burns reports. are more than 2 million people live in the eight areas hardest hit

by the covid variant first seen in india. yesterday there was serious confusion about what the government wants them to do to try to cut the spread. now the guidance has been updated and there is more clarity. i don't want to sort of sit here and say that it was brilliantly, you know, the comms could not be clearer. i think it can be, and, you know, we will certainly make sure we learn from that. the law is the same across the whole of england but there is extra guidance for people in bolton, blackburn, kirklees, bedford, burnley, leicester, hounslow and north tyneside. the first version of that advice on the government website said people should try to avoid travelling in and out of affected areas, unless it was essential. but now that has been tweaked and softened. it says people should minimise travel in and out of those areas but local businesses think it is too late. we border manchester and we border yorkshire. people don't know where they can go. where they couldn't go. and i'm happy we had some clarity. but the damage is already done.

most of the rest of the advice holds. people in these areas should get tested and vaccinated. keep two metres away from others, try to work from home. there are a couple of other new sections. making sure to test or quarantine properly if you are travelling to red or amber list countries and to check out local health advice. bolton is seeing its highest rate of covid cases at any time in the last six months. 1,300 this week. there are 41 covid patients at the royal bolton hospital. and other hospitals in the affected areas say they are seeing more patients too but the numbers are not hugely up. we are seeing lower numbers of older people, they tend to be much younger. but crucially, the significant majority of people who are coming in are people who haven't had their vaccinations. so the key message is please get vaccinated if you are eligible as quickly as possible. away from these places, the national picture is still looking more positive. cases and deaths are low and the vaccine roll—out is going well.

catherine burns, bbc news. two men and three teenagers have been arrested and attempted murder of sasha johnston in south london. missjohnson, who works in community activism and community support, has been a leading figure in the black lives matter movement in the uk. rita is with you from five, let's look at the weather forecast first. rita is with you from five, let's it looks like the weather will be drier and warmer after what has been a miserable, cold and wet may. looks like being another cloudy one across many northern and eastern areas with outbreaks of rain, although across southern and western

areas, a good deal of sunshine around, if you heavy, thundery downpours developing as well for scotland and northern england. those temperatures creeping up a little bit in the sunny spots in the south, 16 or 17 degrees, otherwise the mid—teens further north. there is heavy, thundery showers will tend to ease away this evening and overnight it turns dry, with the cloud tending to thin and break across northern and eastern areas. you can see a little bit of mist and fog developing in places, winds will be light and temperatures falling to between four and 7 degrees. into tomorrow and that is where we are looking at a drier and sunnier day, with increasing amounts of sunshine across the board in fact, the morning cloud clearing from northern and eastern areas. could see the new weather front bringing thicker cloud to western and northern ireland, a bit of uncertainty of the timing of this, otherwise for most, dry, sunny and feeling warmer, 19, may be 20 degrees. friday, high pressure begins to build in. we have this weather front to the west of the uk but as high pressure is building, it

will squeeze it out so it will be weakening through the day. it will bring a rather cloudy day to western fringes of the country through friday, some spots of rain, and those spots are intending to fizzle out later on in the day. the further east you are, variable cloud, one or two showers, some sunny spells and feeling fairly warm where you get the sunshine. highs of 15 to 19 degrees. forthe the sunshine. highs of 15 to 19 degrees. for the weekend, the sunshine. highs of 15 to 19 degrees. forthe weekend, of the sunshine. highs of 15 to 19 degrees. for the weekend, of course a bank holiday weekend, it looks like high pressure will dominate search should be largely dry and feeling warmer. the saturday, weather fronts across western areas will squeeze out and leave no more than a band of cloud but even that should break up to allow for plenty of dry weather across the country. we have seen good spells of sunshine, those temperatures even higher, something we haven't seen for a while highs of 20 or 21 degrees in the sunny spots. a fine day on sunday thanks to high—pressure dominating. it will feel quite warm too, a bit of rain across the north of the uk but across the north of the uk but across the north of the uk but across the south, another warm and sunny bank holiday monday.

this is bbc news. the headlines dominic cummings gives explosive evidence to parliament claiming the initial response to the pandemic was inadequate and complacent with terrible consequences. he also criticised the delay to an inquiry into the pandemic. i criticised the delay to an inquiry into the pandemic.— criticised the delay to an inquiry into the pandemic. i think the idea of any kind — into the pandemic. i think the idea of any kind of— into the pandemic. i think the idea of any kind of serious _ into the pandemic. i think the idea of any kind of serious inquiry i of any kind of serious inquiry doesn't start until next year is completely terrible. the families of all tens of thousands of people died who did not need to die. quizzed by mps the prime minister's former aide said that people died because of the government's failings during the pandemic. he also apologised for some of the mistakes he made. the truth is some senior advisers