and in lockdown at the end of march. and in may, dominic cummings himself got covid. the rules were very clear at the time, if you get it, you self—isolate for two weeks. he basically drove up north from london up basically drove up north from london up to barnard castle, and then was, he said later, testing out his eyesight by driving his children to barnard castle to just see if he felt all right to drive home, and that excuse didn't go down terribly well with the public or indeed the press at the time. and it has stuck with him, basically. this idea of barnard castle. so that was a stunt last night to light up the castle, to talk about how many people had died with covid. there were protesters today, you can probably see a few behind me, some of them have gone there. we shouldn't do this down, there are many people

here in the uk very, very upset with key individuals, borisjohnson and the likes of dominic cummings, you know, these people who lost family members during the covid pandemic, and so i think that the issue last night, the lighting up of the castle, gives you a sense of some of the anger that there is around, and some of these people as you say. it must have been so distressing for people who had lost loved ones during the pandemic to listen yesterday as the details of these messages from the time showed how i suppose you could say shambolic the decision—making was at the heart of government, and the criticism all—round of each other, and just the way that decisions were being made, it is really alarming for them. ., ., , ._ them. there are two things. the way that decisions _ them. there are two things. the way that decisions were _ them. there are two things. the way that decisions were made, _ them. there are two things. the way that decisions were made, and - them. there are two things. the way that decisions were made, and then | that decisions were made, and then what you are also getting is the tone in which some of these decisions were made. and obviously with these whatsapp messages, these private messages, they are not what you would normally get from the

usual formal channels, so we you would normally get from the usualformal channels, so we haven't heard anything like this in a public inquiry before because of course we didn't have whatsapp before, and i think probably some of the language used in some of these messages is obviously very incendiary, it is honestly upsetting for those who feel they have lost someone, who feel they have lost someone, who feel like some of these decisions were made on a whim or the importance of what was going on was being downplayed, so i think you got a real sense of that. there was also another adviser yesterday who was questioned about a meeting that was going on between borisjohnson and then chancellor, rishi sunak. in that meeting, they talked about this particular advisor taking notes, and in that meeting he talked about, it was about two days before lockdown was about two days before lockdown was announced, and he was asked about a comment he had written down about, are we killing the patient while treating the tumour? are we essentially looking after people who are going to die soon anyway? he attributed that, to borisjohnson,

but obsolete gives you a sense of just how frivolous some of this sounded even if these were big decisions being made. the organisation of our party, a bring your own booze party gathering at number ten, so still more details coming out about the drinking that happened in doing lockdown at downing street.— happened in doing lockdown at downin: street. w ., ., , �* downing street. yakima he doesn't reall look downing street. yakima he doesn't really look like _ downing street. yakima he doesn't really look like the _ downing street. yakima he doesn't really look like the sort, _ downing street. yakima he doesn't really look like the sort, he - downing street. yakima he doesn't really look like the sort, he looks l really look like the sort, he looks like what you might do a caricature of other civil servant, if i can be so rude. that was the unfortunate nickname he earned because he sent an e—mail out to staff inviting them to the party —— party marty. just to the party -- party marty. just interrunting _ to the party -- party marty. just interrupting you _ to the party —— party marty. just interrupting you because we are getting the feed from inside the building behind you. let's go straight to it, they are assembling in the room, can we bring you the

feed? here we go, yeah. and let you go inside as they start swearing people in. we are expecting to hear now from lee cain, you can see... you have kindly prepared a witness statement for the inquiry. which is up statement for the inquiry. which is up on screen. i know that you are familiar with the contents. we don't need to go to it but on the last page of the statement there is a statement of truth, stating that you believe the contents of the witness statement are true and you have signed your name underneath. correct. i do did that on the 25th of august 2023. correct. thank you. it is right that you began your career as a journalist but subsequently you have worked in key locations and public relations? yes, correct. in 2016, you worked in that

field for the league campaign in the brexit referendum? yes. you with the communications head for the league campaign. head of broadcast. after the referendum, you worked in communications roles in various different government departments, including working for borisjohnson when he was the foreign secretary between 2016 and 2018. it when he was the foreign secretary between 2016 and 2018.— between 2016 and 2018. it was the latter half of _ between 2016 and 2018. it was the latter half of his _ between 2016 and 2018. it was the latter half of his time _ between 2016 and 2018. it was the latter half of his time as _ between 2016 and 2018. it was the latter half of his time as foreign i latter half of his time as foreign secretary, from the final year, not the entire time.— secretary, from the final year, not the entire time. 2018 at least. when mr johnson the entire time. 2018 at least. when mrjohnson became _ the entire time. 2018 at least. when mrjohnson became prime _ the entire time. 2018 at least. when mrjohnson became prime minister, | the entire time. 2018 at least. when l mrjohnson became prime minister, in july 2019, following peer�*s resignation, you were appointed as a director of communication at number ten. i director of communication at number ten. ., ., ~ .,, ten. i had worked with him as well when he was _ ten. i had worked with him as well when he was on _ ten. i had worked with him as well when he was on the _ ten. i had worked with him as well when he was on the backbenchesl when he was on the backbenches during that period in between.

before he went back into number ten. and then from july 2019, you held that post of director of the medications until you resigned in november 2020, so 18 months or so. just a bit shorter, correct.— just a bit shorter, correct. looking at our just a bit shorter, correct. looking at your statement _ just a bit shorter, correct. looking at your statement on _ just a bit shorter, correct. looking at your statement on the - just a bit shorter, correct. looking at your statement on the first - just a bit shorter, correct. looking i at your statement on the first page, paragraph three, you refer to your position as director of communications and you say that you were one of the prime minister's most senior advisers. as director of human medications, tell us in a few sentences what was your responsibility? did you have responsibility? did you have responsibility for communications across government, or was it something less than that? i across government, or was it something less than that? i think it is our something less than that? i think it is your bread _ something less than that? i think it is your broad role _ something less than that? i think it is your broad role and _ something less than that? i think it is your broad role and we _ something less than that? i think it is your broad role and we met - something less than that? i think it is your broad role and we met is . something less than that? i think it is your broad role and we met is to | is your broad role and we met is to provide political adviser to the prime minister within the sphere of communications and it is quite

nebulous to some degree what control and authority to have of the wider government machine. there is an executive director, who oversees the gcs, the government medication service, that is all of the departments and albs and marketing, all that side of things, and civil servants would normally report into alex. we would work together on various issues but it is quite unclear who is in control of certain elements but mine would be more the political but also more of a counsellor to the prime minister. use a word political and as people come to see, role was not limited to presentational matters. you were advising him on what his strategy should be, notjust how it should be presented. should be, not 'ust how it should be resented. ., ., , should be, not 'ust how it should be resented. ., , , . presented. that was broadly correct. give us a sense _ presented. that was broadly correct. give us a sense of— presented. that was broadly correct. give us a sense of your _

presented. that was broadly correct. give us a sense of your personal- give us a sense of your personal relationship with mrjohnson in 2020. you say you had worked with him for some years by then stop was he a friend of yours? ilistens him for some years by then stop was he a friend of yours?— he a friend of yours? was my boss, so friend is. — he a friend of yours? was my boss, so friend is, it _ he a friend of yours? was my boss, so friend is, it would _ he a friend of yours? was my boss, so friend is, it would be _ so friend is, it would be presumptuous, but we were close, we would speak pretty much everyday and i think i had a good understanding of him, think part of what i brought it downing street operations, having worked with him quite a long time, was a good understanding of how he would react to information and you get simpatico almost relationship between a special adviser and a principal. i between a special adviser and a rinci al. ., ., ., ,, between a special adviser and a --rincial. ., ., w principal. i want to take you throu~h principal. i want to take you through some _ principal. i want to take you through some of _ principal. i want to take you through some of the - principal. i want to take you through some of the eventsj principal. i want to take you i through some of the events of principal. i want to take you - through some of the events of 2020 in a reasonably chronological way. if we can start by looking at page four of your statement. starting at paragraph 16. you make the point here that although, as you say,

there was an awareness of covid early in january there was an awareness of covid early injanuary of there was an awareness of covid early in january of that year, it was only one of many issues discussed inside downing street and you say it was a low priority at that point. if we can look at the next, you talk about various other issues that had some prominence in january and into february, brexit, sg, january and into february, brexit, 5g, reshuffle the cabinet, hs2 and so on. so can you give us a sense of where covid fitted into the hierarchy of concern injanuary and february 2020? i hierarchy of concern in january and february 2020?— february 2020? i think it was, it started from _ february 2020? i think it was, it started from a _ february 2020? i think it was, it started from a pretty _ february 2020? i think it was, it started from a pretty low - february 2020? i think it was, it started from a pretty low base. | started from a pretty low base. number ten, there was always decisions to be made over what would

be the priority issue. 0nly decisions to be made over what would be the priority issue. only the most difficult issues are dealt with the number ten because if they were soluble, they would be solved at a departmental level. there is that constant balance of what we need to focus on at any one time. you can see from the issues outlined here, these are all pretty taxing and difficult issues that deserved the prime minister's attention. but at first covid, we were informed, having conversations with the department of health, the view was that the uk was incredibly well—prepared, there had been a decade of people period this and we were the best in the world to deal with a pandemic and it was being monitored closely by officials in the department of health. so think it was quite rational at that point to assume it would be a departmental lead and they would continue to inform us as and when it was required, when it needed more attention. you can see it goes up the agenda in number ten as we move

through the agenda in number ten as we move throuthanuary into february. clearly we got that assessment wrong but i think you can probably see why we made a judgment we did at the time. ii we made a 'udgment we did at the time. .., ., ., “ we made a 'udgment we did at the time. .., ., ., ~ ., time. if we can look at the next paragraph _ time. if we can look at the next paragraph and _ time. if we can look at the next paragraph and pick _ time. if we can look at the next paragraph and pick up - time. if we can look at the next paragraph and pick up one - time. if we can look at the next paragraph and pick up one or i time. if we can look at the next i paragraph and pick up one or two time. if we can look at the next - paragraph and pick up one or two of the things you just said. can paragraph and pick up one or two of the things you just said.— the things you 'ust said. can you go a bit slower? — the things you just said. can you go a bit slower? sorry. _ the things you just said. can you go a bit slower? sorry. we _ the things you just said. can you go a bit slower? sorry. we see, - the things you just said. can you go a bit slower? sorry. we see, as - the things you just said. can you goj a bit slower? sorry. we see, as you have expiained. _ a bit slower? sorry. we see, as you have explained, covid _ a bit slower? sorry. we see, as you have explained, covid at _ a bit slower? sorry. we see, as you have explained, covid at that - a bit slower? �*r we see, as you have explained, covid at that stage wasn't even in the top five of concerns. but you go on to say, as i think you havejust concerns. but you go on to say, as i think you have just indicated, that officials at the hsc were confident officials at the hsc were confident of the strength of the uk's pandemic preparations and a general view was that it was something that could be dealt with at departmental level. does it follow that at least at that stage, january, february, you were not worried about the priority that was all rather wasn't being given to covid? i

was all rather wasn't being given to covid? ~ g . . , covid? i think in january, particularly _ covid? i think in january, particularly early - covid? i think in january, | particularly early january, covid? i think in january, i particularly early january, it covid? i think in january, - particularly early january, it felt like we were getting the balance right at the time. i think as we moved into late january and early february, it became clear that we didn't particularly have that balance but then i think it becomes, the focus, so yesterday was a lot on individuals, but the actual institutions and organisations within the cabinet office, department of health, the feedback was, we are well prepared to deal with this and things are in hand. the question of with a number ten should have been kicking the tires more and checking those issues if they were in place is a valid one, but i think we're probably complacent to the fact that the work was being done elsewhere when obviously it was not. you mentioned a coule obviously it was not. you mentioned a couple of — obviously it was not. you mentioned a couple of times _ obviously it was not. you mentioned a couple of times and _ obviously it was not. you mentioned a couple of times and referred - obviously it was not. you mentioned a couple of times and referred to - a couple of times and referred to officials at the department of health providing that assurance, talking about the plans and so on. is itjust officials was that the

secretary of state matt hancock as well? . . secretary of state matt hancock as well? , ., , ., ., , well? this extra estate was confident — well? this extra estate was confident as _ well? this extra estate was confident as well _ well? this extra estate was confident as well on - well? this extra estate was confident as well on the - confident as well on the pre—preparedness, in defence of him he did raise the issue early in january, he spoke about it. i had a frequent basis, it wasn't that it wasn't being raised but there was an assurance that we were well set to deal with whatever came our way. he: raised it but he followed that by assuring those he was directed to that the plans were in place and that the plans were in place and that the plans were in place and that the uk was well—placed to the threat? that the uk was well-placed to the threat? : :. that the uk was well-placed to the threat? : :, ., , , threat? and that was still the official but — threat? and that was still the official but still _ threat? and that was still the official but still be _ threat? and that was still the l official but still be government position, even when the action plan was launched in early march, we were well prepared to deal with covid, we had this decade on preparedness, that was language from the action plan. rolling into much, that was still the government view. itide plan. rolling into much, that was still the government view. we will come to the _ still the government view. we will come to the action _ still the government view. we will come to the action plan _ still the government view. we will come to the action plan in - still the government view. we will come to the action plan in a - still the government view. we will. come to the action plan in a moment,

but looking at the next page of your statement, paragraph 22. you refer here to perhaps a conversation or contact that you had with a senior adviser to matt hancock. i think it must have been the 31st of january. who, according to this, suggesting that perhaps the plans were not as well prepared as the assurances that were being given. can you kill us a little more about that exchange? yes, that was the first time for me someone had raised questions about pre—preparedness at this point. they mentioned that while the new deal preparations had helped to support some of the government's planning, they werejust some of the government's planning, they were just concerned about supply chain issues and other such things and were not sure we were in as good a place as potentially was being represented. it wasn't a

panic, it wasjust being represented. it wasn't a panic, it was just some unflagging that maybe this needs more attention. that maybe this needs more attention-— that maybe this needs more attention. ,:, :, ., ~ , attention. -- someone flagging. as we will see. — attention. -- someone flagging. as we will see, the _ attention. -- someone flagging. as we will see, the mood _ attention. -- someone flagging. as we will see, the mood of _ attention. -- someone flagging. as| we will see, the mood of confidence lasted long beyond the 31st of january, so did you do something about this morning that you had been given, or not? that about this morning that you had been given. or not?— given, or not? at that point, i cannot quite _ given, or not? at that point, i cannot quite remember- given, or not? at that point, i cannot quite remember the i given, or not? at that point, i - cannot quite remember the beginning date, i started to host a cross whitehall meeting with the coming occasion professionals which we would invite departmental heads and body heads like the nhs to come into number ten and raise the sort of issues they were getting, because i think part of the problem that communicating is with feeding to me were being asked a lot of question by the media but we don't really have any answers to many of these questions. so we try to begin a central hub where i was getting there information from source and would try and shake the tyres in

number ten. would try and shake the tyres in numberten. soon would try and shake the tyres in number ten. soon after mr would try and shake the tyres in numberten. soon after mr cummings number ten. soon after mr cummings started numberten. soon after mr cummings started a senior team meeting in number ten, focusing on covid, this was more sort of mid—february, i would suspect. let was more sort of mid-february, i would suspect-— was more sort of mid-february, i would suspect. let me ask you about the prime minister, _ would suspect. let me ask you about the prime minister, boris _ would suspect. let me ask you about the prime minister, boris johnson's l the prime minister, borisjohnson's approach at the time. paragraph 21 of your statement, group or to the fact, we know he did not attend or chair a whole series of early cobra meetings, you say that he was focusing his time on the issues outlined i think you mean those other priorities that were mentioned. had he took a two—week holiday you go on to say that you do not now criticise the prime minister for using his time in that way during that period because this was a reflection of the prioritisation

we have discussed, is that right? correct, i think also in defence of the prime minister, there were things he got wrong, but in this early—stage he is receiving assurances that everything actually is being well prepared and we are in a good situation to handle things and nobody is setting up the warning flares to him or to the core team. so his behaviour at this point is not irrational to focus on some of the other issues, we shouldn't forget there were large—scale significant issues at a time. if forget there were large-scale significant issues at a time. if we look back at _ significant issues at a time. if we look back at paragraph _ significant issues at a time. if we look back at paragraph 18 - significant issues at a time. if we look back at paragraph 18 of - significant issues at a time. if "he look back at paragraph 18 of your statement. last sentence or so. you refer to the fact that the prime minister at this stage was stressing the importance of not overreacting in the response, something he said often resulted in greater damage than the initial threat, added that

he linked or likened covid to path viruses such as swine flu. is that something that he said more than once during that period? it something that he said more than once during that period?- once during that period? it was, i think he was _ once during that period? it was, i think he was alive _ once during that period? it was, i think he was alive to _ once during that period? it was, i think he was alive to the - once during that period? it was, i think he was alive to the fact - once during that period? it was, i think he was alive to the fact thatj think he was alive to the fact that previous health issues that had taken hold in years gone by had proved to be sort of not as first anticipated, and i think he was worried about the government being swept up in a sort of media hysteria and overreacting and causing more harm than he would otherwise. again, i think he has a certain colourful phrase of language sometimes but i think it was right and proper that we were looking to provide challenge to what potential options were at that point. to what potential options were at that oint. . . to what potential options were at that oint. , ., , to what potential options were at that oint. . :, , :, that point. this is january or so. as we will _ that point. this is january or so. as we will see, _ that point. this is january or so. as we will see, it _ that point. this is january or so. as we will see, it is _ that point. this is january or so. as we will see, it is right - that point. this is january or so. as we will see, it is right that i that point. this is january or so. as we will see, it is right that in j as we will see, it is right that in fact mrjohnson carried on stating that he didn't want to overreact to

covid for some considerable time after that, even when perhaps other indicators were that this challenge was going to be more serious. yes, that's correct. let's look at 00041813, please. a lengthy document. page 49. we see here this is a month on, the end of february. it is a message from you to a number of people within number ten, including borisjohnson. we see towards the bottom of your message you are saying, the pm should chair a cobra every monday with hancock and officials doing the rest of the week. can we take it that some time has passed and you are now saying, things are more serious, we have to move up through the gears? yes. we can see mrjohnson's response, suggesting that he is keen to fall in with that plan.—

suggesting that he is keen to fall in with that plan.- and i suggesting that he is keen to fall| in with that plan.- and we in with that plan. correct. and we know that in _ in with that plan. correct. and we know that in fact _ in with that plan. correct. and we know that in fact the _ in with that plan. correct. and we know that in fact the first - in with that plan. correct. and we know that in fact the first time i know that in fact the first time that mrjohnson chaired a cobra was a day or two after that, the 2nd of march. but if we can then move onto the page 68 of this document. an zoom in on the bottom, the green message at the bottom. here is a message at the bottom. here is a message from dominic cummings to you on the 3rd of march, so the day after mrjohnson chaired his first cobra. a month after thatjanuary period that we were just cobra. a month after that january period that we were just discussing. where the message seems to be that mrjohnson still doesn't think it is a big deal, he doesn't think anything can be done, his focus is elsewhere, he think it will be like swine flu, he thinks his main danger is talking the economy into a slump. you very fairly said a moment ago that injanuary you didn't criticise

the prime minister thinking more about 5g, hs2 and so on. what about in early march? i about 5g, hs2 and so on. what about in early march?— in early march? i think the prime minister was _ in early march? i think the prime minister was not _ in early march? i think the prime minister was not alone _ in early march? i think the prime minister was not alone in - in early march? i think the prime minister was not alone in not - in early march? i think the prime i minister was not alone in not doing as much as we should by early march, given the scale and evidence that was all over our tv screens at the time. so, yes, the prime minister should have done more but also the team around him at the cross whitehall should have done more. what about you? did you think by early march it was a big deal or not? i early march it was a big deal or not? ~ :. early march it was a big deal or not? ~ ., ., early march it was a big deal or not? ~ ., :, ., , ., not? i think we all thought it was a sirnificant not? i think we all thought it was a significant challenge _ not? i think we all thought it was a significant challenge and _ not? i think we all thought it was a | significant challenge and something that what was going to be that only thing that we're focusing on for an awful long time. it was more how and walk we should be doing at that point, i don't think there was any clarity of purpose, any really serious outline plan to deal with covid at that particular point, i think that was the core failure,

what will be supposed to do? i am not an epidemiologist, that is not the expertise i would bring, but the lack of clarity of what we should be doing at that point... lack of clarity of what we should be doing at that point. . ._ doing at that point... let's come onto that- _ doing at that point... let's come onto that. that _ doing at that point... let's come onto that. that message - doing at that point... let's come onto that. that message was - doing at that point... let's come. onto that. that message was sent doing at that point... let's come - onto that. that message was sent on the 3rd of march. that was the same day as the covid action plan that you have already mentioned was published. you referred to this paragraph page seven. —— paragraph 30. fairto say paragraph page seven. —— paragraph 30. fair to say you are quite dismissive of this plan in your statement. you refer to it with, for five lies down, as a swiftly prepared document published to provide some context to the options we had and the thinking behind our covid response. but then a few lines how the down you said, many in government, including senior

officials and politicians, repeatedly referred to the action plan as of the actual government plan as of the actual government plan to manage the pandemic. this was surprising as the document had little detail and was clearly only useful as a communications device. you of course were the director of communications. at the time, in early march 2020, did you see it as just a piece of pr, r&d due think it was actually the plan? —— or deed you think. was actually the plan? -- or deed you think-— you think. anyone who reads the document will _ you think. anyone who reads the document will see _ you think. anyone who reads the document will see it _ you think. anyone who reads the document will see it is _ you think. anyone who reads the document will see it is not - you think. anyone who reads the document will see it is not a - you think. anyone who reads the | document will see it is not a plan to deal with covid. you know, it is a very thin overview of how we may manage the virus if it progresses. the first element of it was contained, and even by that point containment was off the table, so it just felt a strange document for people to be referring to as an actual government plan at that particular time. that was an area

when quite a few people in number ten were starting to get concerned because if this is the plan, we clearly don't have a plan. did you take a part _ clearly don't have a plan. did you take a part in _ clearly don't have a plan. did you take a part in drafting _ clearly don't have a plan. did you take a part in drafting that - clearly don't have a plan. did you take a part in drafting that plan, | take a part in drafting that plan, the document? i take a part in drafting that plan, the document?— take a part in drafting that plan, the document? :, , :, ., the document? i am sure i would have been involved — the document? i am sure i would have been involved in _ the document? i am sure i would have been involved in discussions _ the document? i am sure i would have been involved in discussions with - been involved in discussions with it, i cannot quite remember the depth of my involvement. did you have the concerns _ depth of my involvement. did you have the concerns you _ depth of my involvement. did you have the concerns you are - depth of my involvement. did you - have the concerns you are expressing now at that time? i have the concerns you are expressing now at that time?— now at that time? i think i had concerns _ now at that time? i think i had concerns that _ now at that time? i think i had concerns that we _ now at that time? i think i had concerns that we didn't - now at that time? i think i had | concerns that we didn't have... now at that time? i think i had - concerns that we didn't have... the document itself was not the issue, the document itself is fine, the purpose for the document was a concern and i think that is when there was challenges, charms made of, what is our actual plan at this point? of, what is our actual plan at this oint? :. of, what is our actual plan at this oint? :, ., of, what is our actual plan at this oint? :. :. ~ of, what is our actual plan at this oint? :, :, : .., of, what is our actual plan at this oint? :, :, : , point? challenge made. we can see the last sentence, _ point? challenge made. we can see the last sentence, you _ point? challenge made. we can see the last sentence, you say - point? challenge made. we can see the last sentence, you say the - point? challenge made. we can see the last sentence, you say the fact i the last sentence, you say the fact that many senior figures kept referring to the document has the

plan, this document you have described as being very thin, shows that in reality the government had no plan to deal with the pandemic. is that something you felt at the time? . is that something you felt at the time? , ., , : is that something you felt at the time? , :,, : ., ~ is that something you felt at the time? , :,, : ., ,, ., time? yes, it was. we talk about flattenin: time? yes, it was. we talk about flattening the — time? yes, it was. we talk about flattening the curve _ time? yes, it was. we talk about flattening the curve and - time? yes, it was. we talk about flattening the curve and there . time? yes, it was. we talk aboutl flattening the curve and there was time? yes, it was. we talk about i flattening the curve and there was a strategy but there wasn't a plan, which i think, the detail of how you will do these things were somewhat absent. did will do these things were somewhat absent. , , :, :, , will do these things were somewhat absent. , . absent. did you raise concerns about it then? i honestly _ absent. did you raise concerns about it then? i honestly can't _ absent. did you raise concerns about it then? i honestly can't remember i it then? i honestly can't remember the details of _ it then? i honestly can't remember the details of the _ it then? i honestly can't remember the details of the concerns - it then? i honestly can't remember the details of the concerns i - it then? i honestly can't remember the details of the concerns i raised| the details of the concerns i raised at that point, i think i would have spoken to people about... the challenge for us was getting information from the media, what fundamental details about that? i remember at that time we were not able to provide a lot of that colour and detail underneath. i would have raised that from an immediate perspective but i wouldn't have been able to challenge the scientific assumptions. it able to challenge the scientific assumptions.— able to challenge the scientific

assum tions. :, , ., ., :, , assumptions. it was at around this time that we _ assumptions. it was at around this time that we may _ assumptions. it was at around this time that we may hear _ assumptions. it was at around this time that we may hear more - assumptions. it was at around this j time that we may hear more detail later today, that dominic cummings was demanding to see the plans, calling particularly for the department of health to provide these pandemic plans and that everyone had spoken so much. were you aware that he was making those inquiries, request, demand? yes. you aware that he was making those inquiries, request, demand?- inquiries, request, demand? yes, i was, ithink— inquiries, request, demand? yes, i was. l think at— inquiries, request, demand? yes, i was, i think at that _ inquiries, request, demand? yes, i was, i think at that particular- inquiries, request, demand? yes, i was, i think at that particular time | was, i think at that particular time there was probably only dominic who was forcefully being agitated and kicking the tyres robustly i don't think he got a great deal of information back if i recall. ihie information back ifi recall. we know that _ information back if i recall. - know that the week that followed the publication of the action plan, the week starting monday the 9th of march, leading up to the 13th, was an action packed week. there were at least two cobra meetings and we will

come onto mention that the discussions at the end of that week and the weekend that followed. at first i would like to go back to the earlier full rate 3183 and look at page earlier full rate 3183 and look at page 22. yes. thank you. this is a text or whatsapp sent by dominic cummings to borisjohnson. 0n the 12th of march, the thursday of that week. he says, we have big problems coming, cabinet office is terrifying, no plans, totally behind the pace, me and warners and lee are having to drive and direct. i take it that the league there is a reference to you. 0k. league there is a reference to you. ok. i don't think you receive that

whatsapp. but do you remember doing that week being one of those group or political advisers who was somehow having to drive and direct the government machine? is that something you would normally expect to have to do? i something you would normally expect to have to do?— to have to do? i think that, the communications _ to have to do? i think that, the communications side _ to have to do? i think that, the communications side drove - to have to do? i think that, the communications side drove a i to have to do? i think that, the . communications side drove a huge amount of government machine doing my entire time, often in terms of looking at here is often colleagues that can find the holes and feebly problems are. because you get an understanding of where journalist schumacher will look at where things might unravel. you're often kicking the tires. ifelt might unravel. you're often kicking the tires. i felt in covid more than anything appearance and a lot of the policy was having to be drafted by also reshaped by communications professionals because wasn't anybody else doing it to any great level, which was surprising to have to deal with from my side. i which was surprising to have to deal with from my side.—

with from my side. i want to pursue a little bit on _ with from my side. i want to pursue a little bit on the _ with from my side. i want to pursue a little bit on the extent _ with from my side. i want to pursue a little bit on the extent to - with from my side. i want to pursue a little bit on the extent to which i a little bit on the extent to which you endorse what mr cummings was saying. he clearly says that the reason and others are driving and directing is because those who should be doing it, that is the cabinet office, are not. do you agree with that? i cabinet office, are not. do you agree with that?— cabinet office, are not. do you agree with that? cabinet office, are not. do you aaree with that? :, , agree with that? i might not use the same language _ agree with that? i might not use the same language but— agree with that? i might not use the same language but generally, - agree with that? i might not use the same language but generally, yes. i same language but generally, yes. can you give us more detail? who was it? individuals or sections within the cabinet office that were feeling at that crucial moment? i the cabinet office that were feeling at that crucial moment?— at that crucial moment? i think the oint was at that crucial moment? i think the point was nobody _ at that crucial moment? i think the point was nobody quite _ at that crucial moment? i think the point was nobody quite knew- at that crucial moment? i think the point was nobody quite knew who i at that crucial moment? i think the i point was nobody quite knew who was the point person who was in charge, who should be driving this machine, who should be driving this machine, who is meant to be in charge of coordinating all the policy. if you ask me now who were supposed to be doing that in those early weeks and months, i couldn't tell you. there was never a holding their hands up,

taking responsibility. it would move around and it fundamentally, like all problems, comes into number ten and a small group of people who have to make the best of things. just finally on this, the cabinet secretary is somebody who would usually take the lead on this. mr cummings makes no bones about his opinion on mark several�*s input at this stage. he said he was out to lunch and everybody knew that. what do you say to that? i had lunch and everybody knew that. what do you say to that?— do you say to that? i had a good relationship _ do you say to that? i had a good relationship with _ do you say to that? i had a good relationship with lord _ do you say to that? i had a good relationship with lord sidwell, l do you say to that? i had a goodl relationship with lord sidwell, he is an incredibly talented official. i wouldn't have known where the responsibility came for who should be doing what in the cabinet office. i think probably a lower level, i

couldn't really comment on that.