really and us position so he has not really in any way deviated from that but i think his tone has been sympathetic, saying he understands those watching the humanitarian crisis in gaza local for a ceasefire but he simply doesn't think it is the right position at the moment. ian, in westminster, _ position at the moment. ian, in westminster, thank _ position at the moment. ian, in westminster, thank you. - position at the moment. ian, in westminster, thank you. let'sl position at the moment. ian, in i westminster, thank you. let's get more now on the covid inquiry. we are in the last week of phase of the inquiry which is examining uk decision—making and political governments during the pandemic. severalformer downing governments during the pandemic. several former downing street employees have given evidence and hear from employees have given evidence and hearfrom borisjohnson's, director of communications. he is giving evidence later today. dominic cummings is taking the hot seat. let's listen back in.— cummings is taking the hot seat. let's listen back in. covid as ever, no back let's listen back in. covid as ever, go back out. _ let's listen back in. covid as ever, go back out. get _ let's listen back in. covid as ever, go back out, get back _ let's listen back in. covid as ever, go back out, get back to _ let's listen back in. covid as ever, i go back out, get back to work, crowd yourself onto trains, going to restaurants and enjoy pizzas with friends and family. you know, really build up that social mixing. now,

thatis build up that social mixing. now, that is fine if you are intent on never having to do suppression measures again. but, from all of the evidence we have received from all of the advice that we have received, it was incredibly clear we were certainly going to have to do suppression measures again. we knew that all the way through. that was from the start. so, to then move forward and say, were going to get back into work when business wasn't even asking for people to come back into work, they were encouraging employees to stay at home, still. we developed all of these tools for remote working. but it was governments on its own demanding people go to work when the research we had were saying people were still quite cautious, businesses do not want to do it. the scientific opinion was that we would have to have another lockdown. to me it made absolutely no sense whatsoever why we were talking about getting everyone back to work and that were the stories that ended up being on

the stories that ended up being on the front pages which was the cause of great frustration. we the front pages which was the cause of great frustration.— of great frustration. we know that there were _ of great frustration. we know that there were calls _ of great frustration. we know that there were calls for— of great frustration. we know that there were calls for a _ of great frustration. we know that there were calls for a circuit - there were calls for a circuit breaker lockdown from september of that year. are you a supporter of those calls at the time? i that year. are you a supporter of those calls at the time?- that year. are you a supporter of those calls at the time? i was, yes. we also know _ those calls at the time? i was, yes. we also know that _ those calls at the time? i was, yes. we also know that that _ those calls at the time? i was, yes. we also know that that didn't - we also know that that didn't happen, at least not in the first place and instead there were rules around tears throughout the country and the rule of six and so on. coming that, please, at 48313, page 54. this is an exchange between you and dominic cummings. it is one the inquiry has seen before. it starts with mr cummings talking about discussions with ministers being moronic. they don't understand what they're talking about. you agree and

say this is embarrassing. mr cummings said by the weekend he will be saying six is untenable. a total disaster. we've got to get everyone back to work. was that a reference, do you think, to the rule of six? i do you think, to the rule of six? i think there was a discussion at the time, we were going to do to household a rule of six. there is a broad policy conversation so i assume it is around those issues, yes. assume it is around those issues, es. , ., ., , yes. just reading down, we see references. _ yes. just reading down, we see references, then, _ yes. just reading down, we see references, then, to _ yes. just reading down, we see references, then, to mr - yes. just reading down, we see | references, then, to mrjohnson yes. just reading down, we see - references, then, to mrjohnson did change his mind again perhaps sooner than had been anticipated. you say, what is this issue? christmas cancelled? is this another emergence of the i think your word was oscillation but the indecision that we were discussing before the break? yes, and i think this point was probably the sort of months was when it was at its most pronounced because he did not want to do any

harder measures. he did not want to go back into suppression. but i think we knew it was an inevitability and i think the crucial thing was, i think, you can forgive some of the errors in the first lockdown because things were moving at incredible speed. you know, building the train tracks as the train is moving in that first period which meant it was, there is inevitably going to be mistakes but i think we have tried to learn as best we could. i by the time we moved into this later period, the rump of numberten moved into this later period, the rump of number ten felt we had learned all these lessons from the first period of lockdown. why are we now trying to ignore them again and repeat the exact same mistakes, which will be too slow to act, a denial of the measures that will be necessary to control the virus, moving too late and allowing it to get out of control. too much virus

which means a longer lockdown in the end, more harmful to the economy, more harmful to health outcomes and there is a realfrustration more harmful to health outcomes and there is a real frustration that we were notjust gripping things and putting... were notjust gripping things and ”uttin... , ., ., ., were notjust gripping things and ”uttin", , ., ., ., putting... frustration that here you are sharing- — putting... frustration that here you are sharing. did _ putting... frustration that here you are sharing. did you _ putting... frustration that here you are sharing. did you share - putting... frustration that here you are sharing. did you share them . putting... frustration that here you l are sharing. did you share them with the prime minister?— the prime minister? frequently. the bottom of this _ the prime minister? frequently. the bottom of this page _ the prime minister? frequently. the bottom of this page we _ the prime minister? frequently. the bottom of this page we see - the prime minister? frequently. the bottom of this page we see a - bottom of this page we see a reference to matt hancock. you say hancock has _ reference to matt hancock. you say hancock has got — reference to matt hancock. you say hancock has got to _ reference to matt hancock. you say hancock has got to go. _ reference to matt hancock. you say hancock has got to go. joker. - reference to matt hancock. you say hancock has got to go. joker. and i reference to matt hancock. you say i hancock has got to go. joker. and mr cummings said yes, and liar. it is right that there were discussions around this time as to whether mr hancock and indeed other ministers should be losing theirjobs. i think should be losing their “obs. i think that was probably _ should be losing theirjobs. i think that was probably more _ should be losing theirjobs. i think that was probably more focus - should be losing theirjobs. i think that was probably more focus on | should be losing theirjobs. i think. that was probably more focus on the health secretary than others. there was a general view, i think, probably most robust the, on mr cummings, that we were not getting

all the accurate information from the health secretary at meetings and that was causing frustration. fight me —— let me ask you to look at another document. me -- let me ask you to look at another document.— me -- let me ask you to look at another document. now, i hope to ask about this fairly _ another document. now, i hope to ask about this fairly quickly. _ another document. now, i hope to ask about this fairly quickly. it _ another document. now, i hope to ask about this fairly quickly. it is _ about this fairly quickly. it is exchange between you and mr cummings and mrjohnson. on the 23rd of august. a week or two before that. and we can see it starting with mr cummings saying he does not think it is sustainable for gw. .. cummings saying he does not think it is sustainable for gw... you would that be? is sustainable for gw. .. you would that be? ,., is sustainable for gw. .. you would that be? . ., h, is sustainable for gw. .. you would that be?— not i that be? gavin williamson. not sustainable _ that be? gavin williamson. not sustainable for _ that be? gavin williamson. not sustainable for mr _ that be? gavin williamson. not sustainable for mr williamson l that be? gavin williamson. not| sustainable for mr williamson to stay at the department for education. i think we need a reshuffle after the summer recess? spending review. aha,

reshuffle after the summer recess? spending review.— reshuffle after the summer recess? spending review. a supporter of get eo - le in spending review. a supporter of get people in line. _ spending review. a supporter of get people in line, focus _ spending review. a supporter of get people in line, focus minds. - spending review. a supporter of get people in line, focus minds. talkingj people in line, focus minds. talking about a reshuffle. he then repeats another message saying it is going to be turbulent but we need a path through it. the message from boris johnson saying he agrees but it is fatal, it will be fatal to brief the cabinet about the upcoming reshuffle. and then a longer message from dominic cummings emphasising the position and perhaps, and i am going to ask about this, giving us some clues to the state of the government at the time, he says it is a big mistake, it is not sustainable. if you don't get the cabinet back into line, you will have months more of the mayhem, briefing and leaking, this will seriously damage your authority. you need to get this back. you need to read the riot act to the cabinet and s w one should know there is a reshuffle coming between the spending review on christmas. at the moment, give taking your eye off the ball. you're happy to have these in

charge. they think that a vast amount of the celtic news in front pages are coming from ten when in fact it is coming from the cabinet, and so on. and then the last paragraph, i also must stress leaving hancock an post is a big mistake. he's proven life and nobody believes or should believe on anything and we face going into autumn crisis with the... still in charge of the nhs. i'm going to come back to that but let me go to 102 these other messages. i'm just going on, there is a series of responses from mrjohnson talking about whether sacking people really sells things. quite what the timing of this reshuffle should be and then if we can look at the top of page 40, please. you contribute, you say

problem leakers, hancock, grant, wallace, trust. there are other ones but these four have caused real problems this year and then you say that you agree with domestic policy agenda. we do need to up. whenever we do a reshuffle it should be bold and filled with those you are convinced will deliver for you. so, to questions. the impression created is of a number of key cabinet ministers, whether because they are leakers away because mr cummings has expressed such strong views about them, who were not trusted as part of the government. choose your adjective. is it chaos? is it dysfunction? help us understand

whether things were really as bad as i painted on these messages. i i painted on these messages. i think, you know, it's obviously a time of significant stress and, you know, the challenges that we were grilling with greater than anything since double is important to highlight that context. i think the government has a huge problem with leaking and it was really pronounced during covid. you are having conversations and you read about them the next day in various newspapers. i think in public health it caused huge problems because people want answers. what does this mean for me, my family? and then we have not got a policy developed and you're trying to mop that up. that was all the time. you cannot have a single conversation that is because

the politics and the knock—about view of all my sort of politics as entertainment is now so entrenched in the relationship between the media and with the government. it is hard to stop it. i think, you know, it is something you deal with as part of policy during normal days. i think, in a crisis like this, it was one of the most difficult issues we faced was the constant leaking of stories. . . . ., faced was the constant leaking of stories. . ,, .., , ., faced was the constant leaking of stories. . . .., . ., ., stories. . second question. reading throuuh it, stories. . second question. reading through it, these _ stories. . second question. reading through it, these are _ stories. . second question. reading through it, these are private - through it, these are private exchanges, we must remember that. but the language that is used repeatedly about colleagues is rude, it is dismissive, it is aggressive. we will hear evidence of a so—called macho culture in downing street. is this a fair reflection? i

macho culture in downing street. is this a fair reflection?— this a fair reflection? i would like to oint this a fair reflection? i would like to point out— this a fair reflection? i would like to point out it — this a fair reflection? i would like to point out it is _ this a fair reflection? i would like to point out it is not _ this a fair reflection? i would like to point out it is not my - this a fair reflection? i would like| to point out it is not my language of what i would have used. i would say, as i mentioned earlier, there is a problem in mrjohnson's senior team that there was a lack of diversity and that was the same in gender, socioeconomic and ethnicity and if you like diversity within a team, you create problems in policy development and culture. that is part of the equation but i think, fundamentally, any number ten is a direct reflection of the principal. and i think that is probably the case here. and i think that is probably the case here-— and i think that is probably the case here. . , ., ., ., case here. finally, i want to ask ou one case here. finally, i want to ask you one or— case here. finally, i want to ask you one or two _ case here. finally, i want to ask you one or two questions. - case here. finally, i want to ask you one or two questions. back| case here. finally, i want to ask. you one or two questions. back in the question of the circuit breaker lockdown. and you describing your

statement, and i will take you to it, a meeting that happened on the 20th of september where some professors and others were brought in, brought in virtually to downing street to discuss and you and your statement make it clear that you regarded, at that stage, that lockdown should take place. and emphasise economic a few weeks later i want to take it to this. this is a text or what tap between you and the prime minister on the 15th of october. i must say, been slightly rocked on their data of covid

fatalities. the median age is 82 for men, 85 for women. that is above life expectancy get covered and live longer. hardly anyone under 60 goes into hospital. i no longer buy all this nhs overwhelm stuff. folks, i think we may need to recalibrate. and you say, all understood but how does this change the policy? still not politically viable to change course. he says it shows we don't go for a nationwide lockdown. now, previously, you've talked about economic against lockdown. this seems to be introducing a slightly different theme. and i want to show you very briefly some other entries and uncertain diaries from around this time. could be the cat them at sequentially, all, 273901. first of all, page 150. this was a little bit earlier, in august. it is recorded

that the pm what tap group kicks off because the pm had read about the infection fatality rate. if we can look at page 308, please. on a similartheme, if we can look at page 308, please. on a similar theme, picking it up a couple of lines down. the pm says his party thinks the whole thing is pathetic and covid isjust his party thinks the whole thing is pathetic and covid is just nature's way of dealing with all people and i'm not entirely sure i disagree with him. a lot of moderate people think it is too much. and lastly page 312. by this time we are in december. we see the chief whip says

i think we should