at agree it is entirely reasonable at an individual level. the agree it is entirely reasonable at an individual level.— an individual level. the second paragraph- _ an individual level. the second paragraph. indeed. _ an individual level. the second paragraph. indeed. he - an individual level. the second paragraph. indeed. he says, . an individual level. the second - paragraph. indeed. he says, people can rashly make _ paragraph. indeed. he says, people can rashly make an _ paragraph. indeed. he says, people can rashly make an informed - paragraph. indeed. he says, people can rashly make an informed choice | can rashly make an informed choice whether the individual will take a small increased risk of dying by hugging their grandchildren or going clubbing, perhaps not the same people hugging their grandchildren and going clubbing, but at the population level the government is under an obligation to ensure that the epidemiological line is held, so that the r rate does not go back above one. was that the nub of the problem? above one. was that the nub of the roblem? ., , , above one. was that the nub of the roblem? . , , ., problem? that is it. chris, in that second paragraph, _ problem? that is it. chris, in that second paragraph, is— problem? that is it. chris, in that second paragraph, is making - problem? that is it. chris, in that second paragraph, is making the | second paragraph, is making the essential— second paragraph, is making the essential point, that even if you have _ essential point, that even if you have elected to be shielded or even if the _ have elected to be shielded or even if the government is trying to shield — if the government is trying to shield this segment of the population, it is not going to work because _ population, it is not going to work because the infectiousness is too great _ do you think that is why perhaps the

segmentation debate did not lead to any practical proposals? i segmentation debate did not lead to any practical proposals?— any practical proposals? i could not see. the possibility _ any practical proposals? i could not see. the possibility of— any practical proposals? i could not see. the possibility of the - see. the possibility of the epidemiological _ see. the possibility of the epidemiological problem. | see. the possibility of the i epidemiological problem. it see. the possibility of the - epidemiological problem. it was sometimes _ epidemiological problem. it was sometimes a — epidemiological problem. it was sometimes a job _ epidemiological problem. it was sometimes a job to _ epidemiological problem. it was sometimes a job to explain - epidemiological problem. it was sometimes a job to explain that| epidemiological problem. it was i sometimes a job to explain that to colleagues. you can see we did not pursue _ colleagues. you can see we did not pursue it _ colleagues. you can see we did not ursue it. . , ., colleagues. you can see we did not ursue it. ,, , ., , ., .,, pursue it. seems to be quite a “0b to exlain pursue it. seems to be quite a “0b to explain to fl pursue it. seems to be quite a “0b to explain to you. i pursue it. seems to be quite a “0b to explain to you. you i pursue it. seems to be quite a “0b to explain to you. you wanted h pursue it. seems to be quite a job to explain to you. you wanted the i to explain to you. you wanted the choice to be given to individuals. you'll see i'm over saying, do not do that. ,, , ., , do that. quite rightly i was interrogating _ do that. quite rightly i was interrogating my _ do that. quite rightly i was interrogating my advice - do that. quite rightly i was interrogating my advice is| do that. quite rightly i was - interrogating my advice is about points _ interrogating my advice is about points that were made to me with a view to— points that were made to me with a view to understanding the arguments and being _ view to understanding the arguments and being able to explain them to the world — and being able to explain them to the world. by and being able to explain them to the world. �* , ,, , , ., the world. by september, in light of what ou the world. by september, in light of what you have _ the world. by september, in light of what you have agreed, _ the world. by september, in light of what you have agreed, which - the world. by september, in light of what you have agreed, which is - what you have agreed, which is obvious that a second wave was coming, you said in your statement, we would have to do something. there

was this debate about a circuit breaker can you recall. the sage advice to you, relayed by your cmo annual government's chief scientific adviser was that the more rapid intervention is put into place and the more stringent they are, the faster the reduction in incidence and prevalence and greater the reduction in deaths related to covid. do you accept that? thanks advice changed _ covid. do you accept that? thanks advice changed a _ covid. do you accept that? thanks advice changed a bit _ covid. do you accept that? thanks advice changed a bit from - covid. do you accept that? thanks advice changed a bit from where i covid. do you accept that? thanks. advice changed a bit from where we were irr— advice changed a bit from where we were in march. they were still making — were in march. they were still making the point on the circuit breaker — making the point on the circuit breaker if— making the point on the circuit breaker. if you look at that sage advice _ breaker. if you look at that sage advice in — breaker. if you look at that sage advice in september, they are still saving _ advice in september, they are still saying if— advice in september, they are still saying if you do one it may not be enough. — saying if you do one it may not be enough, you may have to do another. if enough, you may have to do another. if you _ enough, you may have to do another. if you remember, patrick's point back— if you remember, patrick's point back irr— if you remember, patrick's point back in march. we

if you remember, patrick's point back in march.— if you remember, patrick's point back in march. ~ . . . ., x ,, back in march. we have a whatsapp communication _ back in march. we have a whatsapp communication on _ back in march. we have a whatsapp communication on the _ back in march. we have a whatsapp communication on the 17th - back in march. we have a whatsapp communication on the 17th of - communication on the 17th of september. if we look at that. we can see mr cummings says we should consider a two—week circuit breaker, we should consider doing this this week. then he says, sorry, i meant consider now, early next week for a fortnight. you say, what is the difference between a circuit breaker national lockdown and what if it does not work? is that a nod to the point you have just made? the difficulty with the circuit breaker is, you do not know if it will work, if it is sure there may be a worse risk of having to do it again. patrick said again in one of the meetings — patrick said again in one of the meetings let you know, there is the vo-vo_ meetings let you know, there is the ww risi

secretary but he was on the precautionary side of the argument. he was— precautionary side of the argument. he was not— precautionary side of the argument. he was not in favour of a circuit breaker, — he was not in favour of a circuit breaker, for— he was not in favour of a circuit breaker, for that reason. patrick valance says _ breaker, for that reason. patrick valance says the _ breaker, for that reason. patrick valance says the lesson - breaker, for that reason. patrick valance says the lesson is - breaker, for that reason. patrick valance says the lesson is to - breaker, for that reason. patrick valance says the lesson is to go | valance says the lesson is to go faster, harderthan valance says the lesson is to go faster, harder than you think you need, go wider in geography. the scientifical epidemiological advice, mrjohnson, was, there may be risks but in the general epidemiological context, the advice is, you have to go the extra mile. that therefore would mean a circuit breaker as opposed to local restrictions on varying degrees of stringent restrictions being applied. but your position was, well, ultimately, i do not think the epidemiological argument is made out, i want to take

argument is made out, i want to take a different path and of course circuit breakers were not applied. i want to try to remind everybody of the context when we are coming out of the first lockdown. what is happening is the disease is very to lease bread, shall i say? over the country. there are parts of the uk where it is barely present. some places sadly, leicester and parts of the northwest work. they barely came out of restrictions throughout the time, throughout 2020. the question would have been, do we continue with national measures the whole time, which would have been... which is logical tendency for some of the reservations you had —— admissions

you have had, or do we try to reflect the geography of the outbreak and to say, well, we are not going to close hospitality in devon and cornwall because of whatever is happening in the west midlands or elsewhere. that, for a while, seemed to a lot of people to be a sensible way forward. and i think i mean, it would probably come to this but there would defects in the clearing system. that led to tiering. i think it was worth a try. because of the difficulties with the circuit breaker concept, which, patrick and matt and others have alluded to. that was my hesitation. it wasn't that i was against going

into a national lockdown per se, all that i could set my mind absolutely against it, if you look at what i said to the cabinet onjuly the 21st i said we have got to keep this as part of our arsenal. but i thought that a local approach was a sensible one, a regional approach was a sensible way to go. it was worth trying. sensible way to go. it was worth t inc. , sensible way to go. it was worth t in. _ , ., , ., sensible way to go. it was worth t in. , ., ., sensible way to go. it was worth t in. , . ., ,, . trying. this was a matter of spread of infection — trying. this was a matter of spread of infection and _ trying. this was a matter of spread of infection and death. _ trying. this was a matter of spread of infection and death. to - trying. this was a matter of spread of infection and death. to use - trying. this was a matter of spread of infection and death. to use your words, you thought not having a circuit breaker and then latterly having a tier system was worth a try. was that the correct approach when dealing with matters of such momentous importance? the scientific advice and admittedly mrjohnson, the advice it is never phrased in

terms of you, the prime minister, must impose a circuit breaker. perhaps it is a little more coyly expressed in terms of more rapid interventions are required, go faster you go early, do more. so they gave you by implication the room to make the decision yourself. was it the right approach? why didn't you apply what you need to be the lesson learned from march, which is go early, take a precautionary approach and go the extra mile epidemiologically?— approach and go the extra mile epidemiologically? there were some areas that had _ epidemiologically? there were some areas that had outbreaks _ epidemiologically? there were some areas that had outbreaks of - epidemiologically? there were some areas that had outbreaks of the - areas that had outbreaks of the disease that were in very tough measures. it is not as though we did not do anything nationally. on the contrary, we ratcheted up measures throughout september and october. we intensified the pressure on the virus. september the 9th,

intensified the pressure on the virus. septemberthe 9th, september the 2nd we went back to working from home. octoberthe 14th the 2nd we went back to working from home. october the 14th we move into the tiering system. some places go straight into lockdown and so on. we intensified the tiering system. we then go into the full lockdown at then go into the full lockdown at the end of the month. i actually think that programme had a very good chance of working. if you look at where we were by november, the 22nd, the disease was starting to turn down. the incidents were toning down. the incidents were toning down. what threw us off was the alpha variant.— down. what threw us off was the alha variant. ., ., ., ., alpha variant. you have now moved further into — alpha variant. you have now moved further into november _ alpha variant. you have now moved further into november and - alpha variant. you have now moved i further into november and december. on the 17th of december, as this

debate indicates quite plainly commit your chief adviser was saying we should consider a two—week circuit breaker. the government chief scientific adviser was saying, a circuit breaker would be for two weeks but we can get the paper round tomorrow on that but you can think about doing it regionally. your secretary of state for health and social care was saying, if we want to avoid a national lockdown, we need to act fast, we are going in the wrong direction. you'll scientific adviser again says go fast. you didn't however accept the advice set out, which was go for the two week circuit breaker. taste advice set out, which was go for the two week circuit breaker.— advice set out, which was go for the two week circuit breaker. we did go. we went immediately, _ two week circuit breaker. we did go. we went immediately, a _ two week circuit breaker. we did go. we went immediately, a few - two week circuit breaker. we did go. we went immediately, a few days i we went immediately, a few days later, we went for the working from home and the curfew. ads, later, we went for the working from home and the curfew.— home and the curfew. a 10p and curfew, home and the curfew. a 10p and curfew. did _ home and the curfew. a 10p and curfew, did you _ home and the curfew. a 10p and curfew, did you not? _ home and the curfew. a 10p and curfew, did you not? advice - home and the curfew. a 10p and curfew, did you not? advice to l home and the curfew. a 10p and - curfew, did you not? advice to work from home.

curfew, did you not? advice to work from home-— from home. already by the 22nd of september. _ from home. already by the 22nd of september. 10 _ from home. already by the 22nd of september, 10 million _ from home. already by the 22nd of september, 10 million people - from home. already by the 22nd of september, 10 million people in i from home. already by the 22nd of| september, 10 million people in the country of 67 million are already in lockdown, tier 3. country of 67 million are already in lockdown, tier3. it country of 67 million are already in lockdown, tier 3. it is not as if nothing is happening in that period. no one is suggesting nothing was done. there was the rule of six, the curfew from ten o'clock at night, the packaged measures of late september but the circuit breaker was not done. the september but the circuit breaker was not done-— september but the circuit breaker was not done. the national circuit breaker, was not done. the national circuit breaker. no- _ was not done. the national circuit breaker. no- i— was not done. the national circuit breaker, no. iwanted _ was not done. the national circuit breaker, no. i wanted to - was not done. the national circuit breaker, no. i wanted to keep - was not done. the national circuit l breaker, no. i wanted to keep going with a regional approach. we had 10 million people in lockdown on the 22nd of september. it was not as though the country was not going through, large parts of the country were not going through another lockdown. the issue was whether there was any support for continued

regional approach and actually commit if you look at the october, on october the 20th, in the cabinet meeting, you will see that the cmo says that the country chuka umunna i think the gdt also said, the country is basically divided into three parts by those where the disease is flat and where it is increasing slowly and those where it is rising fast and a regional approach is therefore still justified. fast and a regional approach is therefore stilljustified. that is what, as far as i remember, chris said in that meeting. i am not going to pretend this was an easy decision and it certainly was not. i agonised over it. but i thought a regional

approach could still save us and still help us. he approach could still save us and still help us— still help us. he had said twice, art of still help us. he had said twice, part of the _ still help us. he had said twice, part of the rationale _ still help us. he had said twice, part of the rationale for- still help us. he had said twice, part of the rationale for not - still help us. he had said twice, i part of the rationale for not having a circuit breaker in september, you said it was not as though the country was not going through, or large parts of the country were not going through another lockdown already. it is for the position? obviously from july, there were areas and local restrictions, manchester, liverpool and parts of the north west of england. there was the north west of england. there was the national rule of six. there was then the package a measures of the 22nd of september, which was a curfew at ten o'clock at night and advised to work from home. but the majority of those regions, which to use your words, were placed in lockdown, were not in fact placed in

lockdown, were not in fact placed in lockdown unless and until they went into tier 3 in the tier system. there were already restrictions around the country which were very severe. , ., , , . severe. they were not with respect comparable — severe. they were not with respect comparable to _ severe. they were not with respect comparable to lockdown, - severe. they were not with respect comparable to lockdown, were i severe. they were not with respect l comparable to lockdown, were they? people face restrictions around the country on the basis of where the disease was prevalent and where it was spreading. i thought that, we had learned a lot in that period. we had learned a lot in that period. we had seen the horrors of the first wave. the shock of what had happened. you are completely right about that. it was appalling. we had seen the suffering. we had also seen the impact of the pandemic, the measures we have taken. our objective

remained the same, to protect the nhs and save life. but, and our strategy was to use and pis. it seems to me, given the disparity in the prevalence across the country, it seemed to me for that period that a local approach was worth pursuing and injustice and a local approach was worth pursuing and in justice and fairness, a local approach was worth pursuing and injustice and fairness, a lot of people thought the same. the disease is not prevalent here, they thought, it is not circulating in my community. why am i having to go in lockdown? we had to address the issue as well. the lockdown? we had to address the issue as well.— issue as well. the others who thou . ht issue as well. the others who thought the — issue as well. the others who thought the same _ issue as well. the others who thought the same are - issue as well. the others who thought the same are not i issue as well. the others who thought the same are not the j issue as well. the others who i thought the same are not the prime minister with access to this epic public health advice which appear to be pointing in that direction. eame be pointing in that direction. some of it did and _ be pointing in that direction. some of it did and some _

be pointing in that direction. some of it did and some of— be pointing in that direction. some of it did and some of that, - be pointing in that direction. some of it did and some of that, as i i of it did and some of that, as i just said, continued to support a regional approach. just said, continued to support a regionalapproach. is just said, continued to support a regional approach.— just said, continued to support a regional approach. is that why you called for the _ regional approach. is that why you called for the meeting _ regional approach. is that why you called for the meeting on - regional approach. is that why you called for the meeting on the i regional approach. is that why you j called for the meeting on the 20th of september in downing street with professor goethe, professor hannigan and the state epidemiologist from sweden and professors edmund and maclean? you wanted a greater diversity of scientific advice and at least advice beyond the advice which you were receiving, with which you are not inclined to accept from your own chief medical officer and governmental chief scientific adviser. ~ ., governmental chief scientific adviser. ~ . ,, . governmental chief scientific adviser. . . ,, . adviser. with great respect, it was the other way _ adviser. with great respect, it was the other way round. _ adviser. with great respect, it was the other way round. what - adviser. with great respect, it was the other way round. what i i adviser. with great respect, it was the other way round. what i could | the other way round. what i could say... this is the... towards the end of september, i can see that things are going to deteriorate. there is no question of it. i can see the direction of travel. i still want to use tough local measures to

try to achieve what we need to achieve. i can see, as i told the cabinet and i think i told the public as well, we're probably going to have to go back international measures. what i want to... and i know that when i do that, whenever it comes, there will be of course a lot of downsides. people are going to complain and to have checked for all sorts of good reasons. i need to have the arguments. i need to understand what a lot of people talk about with the great swedish success, how they managed to do it without lockdown. if i am going to impose another lockdown in the course of the next few weeks, which is indeed what i ended up having to do, i need to know what the counterarguments are. you'll

government _ counterarguments are. you'll government and _ counterarguments are. you'll government and you - counterarguments are. you'll l government and you personally counterarguments are. you'll i government and you personally had declared he would be following, by which he would be guided by the science. —— you would be following. throughout the course of that year, you have been guided by, accordingly, the science advisory group for emergencies. why did you not continue to be guided by that advice in september 2020? why did you deliberately allow yourself to depart from that stated position? first of all, the scientific advice was not clear. there was a two yes, there was a push for a circuit breaker but that was not supported by the health secretary, as he testified to you. he was normally amongst the toughest in wanting to

impose lockdown is. there were queries about the circuit breaker and its efficacy. the circuit breaker was tried, as you know, in wales, it is not clear that it actually worked.— wales, it is not clear that it actually worked. wales, it is not clear that it actuall worked. . ., actually worked. that was later. it was not of — actually worked. that was later. it was not of course _ actually worked. that was later. it was not of course imposed. i i actually worked. that was later. it was not of course imposed. i am | was not of course imposed. i am sa in: is was not of course imposed. i am saying is there — was not of course imposed. i am saying is there were _ was not of course imposed. ian saying is there were perhaps legitimate grounds for thinking that a circuit breaker was not panacea. and i was keen to continue with a local, or regional strategy, which continued to have scientific support for being reasonable, as i have said. ., ., , , . . said. the nature of the specific intervention _ said. the nature of the specific intervention may _ said. the nature of the specific intervention may not _ said. the nature of the specific intervention may not have i said. the nature of the specific| intervention may not have been absolutely clear because sage pay is

theissue absolutely clear because sage pay is the issue to you in terms of interventions being required. the debate was plainly about the merits of a circuit breaker. there was a clarity about the debate, what lacked clarity was what ultimately, what political decision should be made by you. you were unclear as to what the way forward should be. the meeting on the 20th of september... but the greatest of respect, what we decided to do was to tighten the measures, the national measures we had but also on october the iath, to go for the system of vallance. you allowed yourself _ go for the system of vallance. you allowed yourself to hear from scientists on either side of a different debate were not to do with the merits of a circuit breaker but to do with whether or not as general

policy, the great barrington approach, that is to say to use another expression, the llaatteerr web approach should be applied, or whether or not the general approach of caution should be applied. that was the debate on the 20th of september. the approach that is later reflected.— later reflected. what was so interesting _ later reflected. what was so interesting about _ later reflected. what was so interesting about that i later reflected. what was so l interesting about that debate, later reflected. what was so i interesting about that debate, as you can imagine, i listened with great care. actually, the scientists who had been billed as... to use your words, they llaatteerr rep brigade, they did not really support that approach. —— de let it rip the grade. the longer the conversation went on, i was fascinated to see how actually they migrated towards a

precautionary approach towards the understanding that and pis were inevitable and necessary and you had to do something. i was really interested... i was thinking ahead, interested... i was thinking ahead, in that conversation. i was thinking ahead to where we were going to end “p ahead to where we were going to end up in a few weeks' time. i wanted to fortify myself against the types of arguments that you have mentioned. bluntly, although you had been given to understand that the state epidemiologist for sweden would probably recommend a more herd immunity style approach, turned out to your surprise in the meeting to argue and fight for stronger intervention. i argue and fight for stronger intervention.— argue and fight for stronger intervention. ., ., _ ., intervention. i would not say that. let me be — intervention. i would not say that. let me be clear. _ intervention. i would not say that. let me be clear. i _ intervention. i would not say that. let me be clear. i don't _ intervention. i would not say that. | let me be clear. i don't remember him, oranybody, making any

particular comment about tiers versus lockdown is a whatever. but what i do remember is a surprising degree of unanimity given the divergences of views i had been led to expect. he divergences of views i had been led to exect. ._ ., divergences of views i had been led to exect. ., ., to expect. he may not have mentioned. — to expect. he may not have mentioned, circuit - to expect. he may not have mentioned, circuit breakers to expect. he may not have i mentioned, circuit breakers quite lockdown is all tiers, that in the debate about the precautionary approach and need for stronger intervention, and was made plain to you, contrary to much of the press reporting about the swedish approach, a stronger intervention was merited if the approach adopted by your government was, there is a second wave coming, we need to do more to stop it. we have been

watching boris johnson more to stop it. we have been watching borisjohnson giving evidence today at the covid inquiry. about circuit breakers and the eat out to help out scheme. you can continue to watch that by scanning the qr code you can see on the right—hand side of your screen. that will take you to the bbc live page which will keep you updated as mr johnson continues to give evidence to the covid inquiry. you can also watch the former prime minister's evidence the bbc iplayer. while we have been at the covid inquiry, we have been at the covid inquiry, we have had some breaking news. last night robertjan rick resigned as immigration minister. he —— robert jenrick. he has split this job

immigration minister. he —— robert jenrick. he has split thisjob into two. alex forsyth will explain all. robertjenrick quit his job as immigration minister last night because he said he did not agree with the way the government was managing its approach to the rwanda plan. that sent a shock wave through westminster. there was speculation about who might replace him. rishi sunak has chosen to split the role into two. there will be a minister for what the government calls illegal immigration and a minister for legal immigration as well. the ministerfor illegal for legal immigration as well. the minister for illegal immigration for legal immigration as well. the ministerfor illegal immigration has gone to michael tomlinson, who was a solicitor general before, conservative mp, of course. he takes on the brief from robertjenrick. thejob of solicitor on the brief from robertjenrick. the job of solicitor general, which michael tomlinson met a cross from is taken over by robert forbes. he

wanted someone he would not publicly disagree on the policy and cause further fractions in the conservative party. he is hoping his appointment are people he can rely on. the other big question about all of that is whether or not they can indeed deliver. that question is on many minds of conservative mps, you have seen such heated rhetoric. it is this question about whether the rwanda policy can get off the ground and rishi sunak can stop small boat crossing. then the question of illegal immigration. this is an attempt by rishi sunak to put people and those briefs which will not cause any further reductions in the conservative party. more importantly, it is about what the government can promise. brute

importantly, it is about what the government can promise. we have heard from — government can promise. we have heard from the _ government can promise. we have heard from the prime _ government can promise. we have heard from the prime minister- government can promise. we have heard from the prime minister in i government can promise. we have i heard from the prime minister in the last hour, he will surely hold a news conference, an emergency news conference, certainly unscheduled. it goes to show he is in a tight spot on this. he it goes to show he is in a tight spot on this-— spot on this. he is in difficult sot on spot on this. he is in difficult spot on this. _ spot on this. he is in difficult spot on this. he _ spot on this. he is in difficult spot on this. he has - spot on this. he is in difficult spot on this. he has had i spot on this. he is in difficult i spot on this. he has had problems with the rwanda scheme. the government itself attached a lot of importance to this. no asylum seekers have gone to rwanda because of the challenges in delivering the schema making it operational. the second aspect is the political challenge faced by rishi sunak because there is another deep division in the conservative party over this policy. robertjenrick quit over this policy. robert jenrick quit last over this policy. robertjenrick quit last night. he has been an ally of rishi sunakfor some quit last night. he has been an ally of rishi sunak for some time. quit last night. he has been an ally of rishi sunakfor some time. he quit his post because he did not think the government would deliver

on that rwanda policy. the political challenges are very well. we have had an announcement of a press conference. we are expecting rishi sunak to take questions from journalists. the tone and content of what rishi sunak says will be absolutely crucial in determining the maid of conservative mps throughout the course of today and in coming days. there is a lot of chatter in westminster about where rishi sunak is. he quite often get a lot of chatter particularly after a ministerial resignation like that of robertjenrick. what rishi sunak saysin robertjenrick. what rishi sunak says in the way he says it will be absolutely vital in determining how conservative mps react and respond. we will be live in downing street for that as soon as the prime minister starts to speak. i want to bring in our home editor, mark easton. we have talked about how

rishi sunak is splitting the job into illegal migration and illegal migration. what is the difference? there is a massive difference. illegal migration is very much a phrase the government has been championing over the last few years to describe all those people who arrive in the uk by regular routes. in particular means those people are riding in small boats across the channel, which has become absolutely the key issue for rishi sunak and the key issue for rishi sunak and the conservative government. legal migration, these are people under the points—based system introduced after brexit, who are able to come to the uk under the rules we have and get a visa and come and live in the uk. on the illegal side, illegal migration as they would describe it, makes up around 3% of all migration to the uk. a really tiny proportion. i know it will upset some people and

you hear a i know it will upset some people and you hear a lot i know it will upset some people and you hear a lot of i know it will upset some people and you hear a lot of criticism i know it will upset some people and you hear a lot of criticism so i know it will upset some people and you hear a lot of criticism so we did try to explain why i have decided to do this. i am the child of immigrants, i understand why some people take the risk of getting into unsafe dinghies to cross open waters. it is because the united kingdom is an incredible country. it offers opportunity, hope and safety. but the difference is my family came here legally. like most immigrants, they integrated into local communities, worked hard to provide for theirfamily, communities, worked hard to provide fortheirfamily, built communities, worked hard to provide for theirfamily, built lives communities, worked hard to provide for their family, built lives and businesses, found friends and neighbours and most of all they were really proud to become british. the feeling of pride that cascades down the generations, growth and that is why you see so many children of immigrants sitting around the cabinet table. but it is not a given. illegal immigration undermines notjust our border controls, it undermines the very sense of fairness that is so central to our national character. we play

by the rules. we put