Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Nadeem Badshah (now) and Andrew Sparrow (earlier)

UK politics live: Robert Jenrick resigns over immigration policy – as it happened

Boris Johnson Covid-19 Alastair Campbell Jordan Pettitt Pandemic Chequers Cobra

Thanks so much for following events with us. We are closing this blog now, you can read all our UK politics coverage here.

A summary of today's developments

  • The immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, has quit, just hours after the prime minister tabled a bill to save the Rwanda deportation policy. He stood down after the legislation did not allow ministers to override international laws which have stopped the government from sending asylum seekers to central Africa. Jenrick, who was appointed in October 2022, said the emergency legislation introduced to revive the Rwanda policy had “moved towards my position” but the Bill was “a triumph of hope over experience”. Rishi Sunak has described Jenrick’s resignation as “disappointing”, telling him in a letter he fears it was “based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation”.

  • The government earlier published emergency legislation aimed at shoring up its Rwanda asylum policy after it was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court last month. The home secretary, James Cleverly, told the Commons the legislation will prevent further legal challenges to deportation flights but Jenrick said in his resignation letter the draft law “does not go far enough”.

  • The Rwandan government has in effect confirmed what Rishi Sunak told Tory MPs about it being responsible for blocking a bill that would have disapplied the European convention on human rights. Vincent Biruta, the Rwandan foreign affairs minister, released a statement saying its deportation deal with the UK must meet “the highest standards of international law”.

  • During his evidence to the Covid inquiry, Boris Johnson said it is “nonsense” to claim he kept Matt Hancock as health secretary so he could be a sacrifice for the inquiry. Johnson also told the inquiry in London he is “deeply sorry” about the pain and suffering experienced during the pandemic.

  • Johnson insisted he does not recall being told in a Cobra meeting conclusion from 26 February 2020 that mass deaths were increasingly likely. He also admitted regrets for previously saying that long Covid was “bollocks” and “Gulf War syndrome stuff”.

Jenrick 'misunderstanding' Rwanda law, says Sunak

In his letter to Jenrick, Sunak wrote: “Your resignation is disappointing given we both agree on the ends, getting flights off to Rwanda so that we can stop the boats. I fear that your departure is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. It is our experience that gives us confidence that this will work.

“Our returns deal with Albania, that you were instrumental in securing, has cut Albanian arrivals by 90% …

“This [Rwanda] bill is the toughest piece of illegal migration legislation ever put forward by a UK government. It makes clear that Parliament deems Rwanda safe and no court can second guess that…

“If we were to oust the courts entirely, we would collapse the entire scheme. The Rwandan government have been clear that they would not accept the UK basing this scheme on legislation that could be considered in breach of our international law obligations. There would be no point in passing a law that would leave us with nowhere to send people to.”

Updated

Sunak has described Robert Jenrick’s resignation as “disappointing”, telling him in a letter he fears it was “based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation”.

You can read our full report into Robert Jenrick’s resignation – and what it means for Rishi Sunak – here.

Jenrick entered the Commons as MP for Newark in Nottinghamshire in a 2014 by-election, Press Association reminds us.

Theresa May promoted him to a Treasury minister in January 2018 and he was made housing secretary by Boris Johnson when he took office in July 2019.

But his time around the cabinet table ended in controversy, when he was sacked after a string of high-profile and damaging accusations. His departure followed the unlawful approval of a Tory donor’s housing development and eyebrow-raising journeys during lockdown.

Johnson stuck by Jenrick despite anger over his approval of media mogul Richard Desmond’s 1,500-home Westferry Printworks development in east London. The permission came the day before a new council community levy would have cost Desmond’s company an extra £40m. Jenrick later had to quash his own approval, conceding the decision was “unlawful” due to “apparent bias”.

There was also criticism over Jenrick’s decision to travel 150 miles from his London property to his Herefordshire home, and then journeying for more than an hour to visit his parents in Shropshire while the country was in Covid lockdown. He later lost his post in a reshuffle.

The arrival of Liz Truss in Number 10 saw Jenrick return to government for a short stint in the Department of Health. Then in October 2022, with Rishi Sunak taking the top job, Jenrick was appointed immigration minister.

A handout photograph released by the UK Parliament shows Britain's Home Secretary James Cleverly making a statement on Statement on the UK-Rwanda partnership in the House of Commons.
A handout photograph released by the UK Parliament shows Britain's Home Secretary James Cleverly making a statement on Statement on the UK-Rwanda partnership in the House of Commons. Photograph: Maria Unger/PRU/AFP/Getty Images

Labour’s national campaign coordinator Pat McFadden said: “This latest chaotic chapter demonstrates why the country is ready for change. And Keir Starmer’s changed Labour Party stands ready.

“The British people deserve a government that will fix the issues that matter to working people, not a Tory circus of gimmicks and leadership posturing.”

Jenrick, who was appointed in October 2022, also said the emergency legislation introduced to revive the Rwanda policy had “moved towards my position” but the Bill was “a triumph of hope over experience”.

He said: “In our discussions on the proposed emergency legislation you have moved towards my position, for which I am grateful.

“Nevertheless. I am unable to take the currently proposed legislation through the Commons as I do not believe it provides us with the best possible chance of success.

“A Bill of the kind you are proposing is a triumph of hope over experience. The stakes for the country are too high for us not to pursue the stronger protections required to end the merry-go-round of legal challenges which risk paralysing the scheme and negating its intended deterrent.”

In the letter to Rishi Sunak, Jenrick said the small boats crisis was doing “untold damage” to the country and the government needed to place “national interests highly contested interpretations of international law”.

He added: “As you know, I have been pushing for the strongest possible piece of emergency legislation to ensure that under the Rwanda policy we remove as many small boat arrivals, as swiftly as possible to generate the greatest deterrent effect.

“This stems from my firmly held position that the small boats crisis is a national emergency that is doing untold damage to our country, and the only way we will be able to stop the boats completely is by urgently introducing a major new deterrent.

“I have therefore consistently advocated for a clear piece of legislation that severely limits the opportunities for domestic and foreign courts to block or undermine the effectiveness of the policy.”

Jenrick discloses 'strong disagreements' with government's immigration policy

Robert Jenrick has officially announced his resignation on X, saying “I cannot continue in my position when I have such strong disagreements with the direction of the Government’s policy on immigration.”

That brings the Commons’ reaction to the home seecretary’s Rwanda statement to an end.

The Guardian’s Pippa Crerar on Robert Jenrick’s resignation.

Cleverly, asked how the Bill can comply with international law when its front page states the Home Secretary cannot say it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, told the Commons: “Because what the statement says on the front of the Bill is clear, the words are unambiguous.

“But also I am absolutely certain that we are in accordance with international law, the two are not interchangeable.”

Conservative former immigration minister Kevin Foster asked if Ministry of Defence aircraft could be used to transfer people to Rwanda, with Mr Cleverly replying: “I don’t want at this point to go into too much detail of all the operational procedures, but I can reassure him we’re thinking about the logistics of that.”

Conservative former minister Mark Francois said the Home Secretary had “pointedly ducked” questions about individual appeals.

He asked: “As every person we would seek to send to Rwanda is an individual, if under this legislation those people could continue to appeal and appeal in order to delay being put on a flight, what’s the point of the Bill?”

Cleverly, in his reply, said: “An appeal process is an important part of a new legal process, it will not preclude people from being sent to Rwanda on this scheme.”

The provision of individual appeals is not related to the safety of Rwanda, the home secretary said.

James Cleverly’s comments were in response to a question from Conservative former minister Dr Caroline Johnson, who said: “There is a provision as he said for individual claims, can he tell what circumstances such an individual could expect to be successful? And how long that and the appeals process will be expected to take?”

Cleverly said: “The provision of individual claims is not to do with the safety of Rwanda, that’s an important distinction that needs to be made.

“Of course there does need to be provisions for appeals, that’s a normal part of any judicial or legal process.”

Home secretary confirms Robert Jenrick's resignation as immigration minister

Cleverly has now confirmed that Robert Jenrick has resigned as immigration minister.

“That has been confirmed,” Cleverly said after repeated questioning.

Updated

Robert Jenrick resigns as immigration minister

The immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, has quit, just hours after the prime minister tabled a bill to save the Rwanda deportation policy.

He stood down after the legislation did not allow ministers to override international laws which have stopped the government from sending asylum seekers to central Africa.

Jenrick’s resignation will be seen as a move to position himself as the head of a growing rightwing rebellion aimed at ensuring that the UK can act unilaterally and send flights to Kigali.

Updated

James Cleverly will be judged for “decades” on the impact of the Government’s new Rwanda treaty and emergency bill, a senior Conservative backbencher has claimed.

Tory former minister Sir John Hayes, a close ally of ex-home secretary Suella Braverman, told the Commons: “The new Home Secretary will of course be aware and welcome the fact that he will be… judged by the effectiveness of this legislation for weeks and months and years, perhaps decades even.

“So will he confirm that the provisions in this Bill are sufficient to resist individual challenges from those who might be sent to Rwanda, and the interest groups and the dodgy lawyers who support them? And in particular would he speak specifically about the disapplication of Rule 39?”

Rule 39 orders from European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have been used to suspend attempts to deport migrants in the past.

Cleverly replied: “The right is for ministers to decide on our response to a Rule 39 application, that is in the Bill. He is right that this sets important precedents.

The European court of human rights would benefit from “evolution” and “updating”, Cleverly told the Commons.

The Conservative former home secretary Priti Patel asked for details of any assessments made “as to whether the disapplication of the Human Rights Act and other laws are robust and will stand up to the legal challenges and ensure ultimately the delivery and the implementation of this policy”.

Cleverly said: “The UK takes its international obligations incredibly seriously. The Human Rights Act is in part being disapplied through this legislation”

He said the UK was one of the founding members of the European court of human rights, adding: “We regard it as an important institution, but like many postwar institutions it would benefit from evolution, it would benefit from updating.”

The home secretary added: “We have a robust legal system, we have a robust parliamentary system here in the UK. We should have some more self-confidence in those systems and use our experience to help capacity-building in partner countries like Rwanda.”

Updated

Robert Jenrick 'has resigned' as immigration minister

The Home Office minister Laura Farris has said that Robert Jenrick has resigned as immigration minister.

She told LBC: “I understand that he has.”

Asked why, she said: “I don’t know, in all honesty. I just came from the chamber and found out after I connected to your show.”

Updated

The Lib Dems’ Christine Jardine says the policy is “immoral”, “expensive” and “unworkable”.

Updated

From Sky News’ Sam Coates.

Cleverly again refuses to answer a question from Labour about the cost of sending an asylum seeker to Rwanda.

The Times’ Aubrey Allegretti is reporting that Jenrick is on the brink of resigning.

In response to the Rwanda draft bill, the Law Society of England and Wales president, Nick Emmerson, has said in a statement: “The UK government is seeking to overturn an evidence-based finding of fact by the supreme court and shield itself from accountability under both domestic and international law through this legislation.

“For the second time this year and by its own admission, the government is unable to guarantee the bill will be compatible with the European convention on human rights.

“The Rwanda scheme has never been the answer to tackling the asylum question. The government is risking the UK’s international reputation and its standing in the world to deliver a plan that can, at best, be described as gestural.”

Updated

Cleverly refuses to confirm whether Robert Jenrick is still immigration minister

With Robert Jenrick still absent in the Commons, Cleverly tells the home affairs committee chair, Diana Johnson: “I have no doubt the immigration minister will be in front of her committee as promised.”

Updated

Cleverly reiterates that the government will publish the cost of the Rwanda scheme on an annual basis.

Amid the cries of “Where is Robert?” from the Labour benches, Cleverly sought to assure the Commons that there was no risk of refugees being returned to their countries of origin from Rwanda as a result of the treaty and new legislation.

The home secretary told MPs: “It means that someone removed to that country will not be removed or sent to another country in contravention of any international law, and anyone who is seeking asylum or who has had asylum determination will have their claim determined and be treated in accordance with that country’s obligations under international law.

“Anyone removed to Rwanda under the provisions of the treaty will not be removed from Rwanda except to the United Kingdom in a very small number of limited and extreme circumstances.

“And should the UK request the return of any relocated person, Rwanda will make them available.”

Updated

From the Guardian’s Pippa Crerar.

Cleverly does not answer the questions and responds that the “mask has slipped” on the other side of the house, citing Labour’s support for giving money to countries to develop.

Updated

Cooper fires off a series of questions including asking how much more money has been paid to Rwanda and if there is any deal for annual payments regardless if asylum seekers are sent there.

Cooper also cites reports that the Rwandan government told Rishi Sunak that it did not want to be on the wrong side of international law.

Cooper cites the former home secretary Suella Braverman calling the bill “fatally flawed” and that it will not stop the boats.

Updated

In response, the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, describes it as “total chaos” and brings up the elephant in the room: where is the immigration minister Robert Jenrick?

Updated

Cleverly says “other countries” have copied the UK’s plans on Rwanda but does not specify which ones.

Cleverly adds that anyone removed from Rwanda under the treaty will not be removed from the African country unless to the UK in extreme circumstances.

From GB News’ Christopher Hope.

Cleverly says emergency legislation published today says Rwanda is a safe country to prevent courts “second guessing” the will of parliament.

“We will introduce legislation tomorrow in the form of the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill to give effect to the judgment of parliament that Rwanda is a safe country, notwithstanding UK law or any interpretation of international law.”

Updated

The new treaty includes a new specialist appeals tribunal to consider individuals’ appeals against refused claims.

Cleverly reiterates the government’s commitment to Rwanda and says it is a “vital partner to the UK”. He says flights will take place “as soon as possible”.

Updated

On the supreme court judgment three weeks ago stating the removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, Cleverly says those concerns have been “conclusively answered” and changes have been made.

Updated

The home secretary, James Cleverly, is about to give a statement in the Commons on the Rwanda treaty and bill.

Updated

Rwanda would have abandoned deportation deal if new UK bill defied ECHR, its foreign minister suggests

The Rwandan government has in effect confirmed what Rishi Sunak told Tory MPs about it being responsible for blocking a bill that would have disapplied the European convention on human rights. Vincent Biruta, the Rwandan foreign affairs minister, has released a statement saying its deportation deal with the UK must meet “the highest standards of international law”. ITV’s Paul Brand has the full statement.

That’s all from me for today. Nadeem Badshah is now taking over.

James Cleverly, the home secretary, will deliver a statement to MPs at 6pm on Rwanda. It will cover the treaty signed yesterday, and the bill published this afternoon.

Eleni Courea from Politico has more on what happened at the 1922 Committee meeting. She says Rishi Sunak told his MPs that he could not publish a bill proposing to disapply the European convention on human rights because that would have been unacceptable to Rwanda.

She has posted these on X.

Rishi Sunak has just told Tory MPs at the 1922 committee that it’s time for them to make a choice whether they fight the Labour Party — or one another

The PM has told MPs that it’s Rwanda — not him — who doesn’t want to be seen as breaching international law, according to a Tory source

He argued that if the government went further to disapply international conventions, then Rwanda would want no part in it

Theresa May has told the 1922 committee that “whatever the views of some people in this room” Rwanda is not what will determine the next election

She said that instead the Tories need to focus on cost of living and economy and — in fact quieten the talk on Rwanda

Significant win for Rishi Sunak - Bill Cash seems to have given his tentative backing to the bill

At the 1922 committee Cash told MPs it seems robust and reasserts parliament’s sovereignty

Sunak said “it is this Bill or it is nothing”

Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, has recently become popular with the Tory right for the stance he has been taking on small boats, and on legal migration. He let it be known that he was pushing No 10 for much stronger measures, and he recently implied in the Commons that his own plans were blocked last year. There are reports tonight that he is unhappy with the Rwanda bill.

This is from the i’s Arj Singh.

Sunak sets up showdown with Tory right as Rwanda laws stop fail to ignore ECHR

One source claims Robert Jenrick is “teetering” on the brink of resignation because legislation is not hard enough

This is from the Spectator’s Isabel Hardman.

And this is from Mail Online’s David Wilcock.

Sunak tells Tory MPs they must 'unite or die' as publication of Rwanda bill exposes divisions

Rishi Sunak told his MPs they had to “unite or die”, Kitty Donaldson from Bloomberg reports.

Sunak tells his MPs “unite or die”

Rwanda bill 'fatally flawed', says source close to former home secretary Suella Braverman

Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, believes the Rwanda bill does not go far enough. A source close to her said:

This bill doesn’t come close to meeting Suella’s tests. The prime minister has kept the ability for every single illegal migrant to make individual human rights claims against their removal and to then appeal those claims if they don’t succeed at first. It is fatally flawed. It will be bogged down in the courts for months and months. And it won’t stop the boats. It is a further betrayal of Tory voters and the decent patriotic majority who want to see this insanity brought to an end.

Braverman set out her five tests in a personal statement in the Commons this afternoon. (Cabinet ministers can make a personal statement to MPs when they resign. Braverman was sacked, and it was more than three weeks ago, but she was allowed to make her statement anyway.)

As the BBC reports, here are the five tests she set for a Rwanda bill. The BBC describes them as:

1) It must address the supreme court’s concerns about the safety of Rwanda

2) It must pave the way for flights to Rwanda before the next election “by blocking off all routes of challenge”, including under the Human Rights Act, the ECHR, the Refugee Convention, and all other international law

3) It must ensure removals to Rwanda can take place within days of people arriving illegally, rather than allowing challenges which drag on for months

4) It must allow people who arrive illegally to be detained until they are removed, and “Nightingale-style detention facilities” must be built to enable this, like Nightingale hospitals were built to deal with Covid

5) Parliament must be prepared to sit over Christmas to get this bill passed

Updated

Johnson booed as he leaves Covid inquiry

Boris Johnson was booed as he left the Covid inquiry a few minutes ago.

Updated

Here is Rajeev Syal and Kiran Stacey’s story about the Rwanda bill.

Rishi Sunak is about to address the backbench Conservative 1922 Committee.

This is from the Sun on Sunday’s Kate Ferguson, who is with journalists in the corridor outside the room in the Commons where the meeting is taking place.

Updated

Colin Yeo, a barrister specialising in immigration law, has posted a first-take analysis of the Rwanda bill in a series of posts on X. He says he thinks the bill does not breach international law, but that deportations under the bill could be unlawful under international law.

Sunak says new Rwanda bill will disapply Human Rights Act for small boat deportations

Commenting on the Rwanda bill (see 4.41pm), Rishi Sunak said:

I have been unequivocal that we can no longer tolerate the endless scourge of illegal migration on our country.

It is costing us billions of pounds and costing innocent lives, and that is why we are taking action to put a stop to it and make clear once and for all that it is parliament that should decide who comes to this country, not criminal gangs.

Through this new landmark emergency legislation, we will control our borders, deter people taking perilous journeys across the Channel and end the continuous legal challenges filling our courts.

And we will disapply sections of the Human Rights Act from the key parts of the bill, specifically in the case of Rwanda, to ensure our plan cannot be stopped.

Updated

Government publishes its new Rwanda bill intended to allow deportations to go ahead

The government has just published its bill intended to enable Rwanda deportation flights to take off. It’s called the safety of Rwanda (immigration and asylum) bill.

Johnson says it is 'nonsense' to claim he kept Hancock in post so he could be 'sacrifice for inquiry'

Johnson defends Matt Hancock, the health secretary. He says he thought he was doing a good job. He was intellectually able and on top of his department.

And he says he did not see why it would be good to replace him with someone who might not be better.

He says control of the pandemic was centralised in No 10.

Q: Mark Sedwill said in July you should sack him, you knew he had a tendency to over-promise, you knew people did not trust him, but you stuck with him?

Johnson says it was not obvious that sacking him would help. And in politics someone is always urging you to sack someone, he says.

Q: Dominic Cummings says you wanted to keep Hancock “as the sacrifice for the inquiry”.

Johnson says he does not remember that at all.

He goes on to say it’s “nonsense”.

Hancock was a good communicator.

Q: Sedwill said he told you to sack Hancock “to save lives and protect the NHS”.

Johnson says he does not remember.

And that’s it.

Lady Hallett says Johnson has had a long day. And she says he will have a long day tomorrow, when he is back giving evidence for another whole day.

Updated

Johnson says he has called Helen MacNamara to apologise for c-word expletive about her in No 10 WhatsApp exchange

Keith shows an exchange of messages between Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary, and Simon Case, his successor.

Exchanges between Sedwill and Case
Exchanges between Sedwill and Case. Photograph: Covid inquiry

Johnson says he does not recall any conversations with Sedwill or Case about behaviour.

He repeats his point about it not being a bad thing having people there who could “challenge the consensus and get things done”.

Q: But lots of things were not done.

Johnson says, when it came to the management of the pandemic, he does not think any feuding between officials made “the slightest difference” to processes or decision making.

Q: The inquiry was shown a particularly offensive WhatsApp message about Helen MacNamara from Cummings to you and others. You never complained about that.

Johnson says he does not remember that, but he must have seen it. He was on the group. He says he has called MacNamara to apologise for that.

Updated

Keith says Johnson himself described the government as “an orgy of narcissism”.

Johnson says that was at the end of the process.

Updated

Johnson says he sometimes spoke bluntly in meetings 'to give people cover to do the same'

Q: A lot of evidence has been given to the effect that No 10 was dysfunctional.

Johnson says no one put it to him like that.

He says the country needed “continuous, urgent action”. He wanted meetings where people could speak their minds without fear.

And he says he sometimes spoke bluntly in meetings “because I wanted to give people cover to do the same”.

Lady Hallett intervenes. She says she wants to know if Johnson might have had a better framework for decision-making if a different culture had been in place. She says eventually they settled on the Covid-O and Covid-S committees (cabinet committees that managed Covid).

Johnson says Hallett has “put your finger on it”.

He says he wanted meetings where people said their piece.

For future pandemics, there should be more clarity about the difference between decision-making meetings and discussion meetings.

He says the PM should go into some meetings knowing that they are decision-making meetings. That was not happening, he says.

Updated

Johnson says culture at No 10 was 'occasionally argumentative', but says that was 'no bad thing'

Keith comes back to the departure of Mark Sedwill. He says it will be for Lady Hallett to decide whether he was sacked or whether, as Johnson claims (see 11.21am), he moved on.

And he asks about the report that Helen MacNamara, the deputy cabinet secretary, compiled about the operation of No 10.

Johnson says he would rather have a No 10 where people challenged, and brought new ideas, and felt free to say things, than one where people pretended all was well.

Q: If you were concerned about civil service unease about Dominic Cummings, your response was to sideline Sedwill, and keep Cummings.

Johnson says that is Keith’s way of putting it.

Sedwill told him he wanted to move on, Johnson claims.

As for the culture, “it was occasionally argumentative, but that was no bad thing”, he says.

Updated

Johnson says he regrets saying long Covid was 'bollocks' and 'Gulf War syndrome stuff'

Q: For a long time you questioned if long Covid existed. And you compared it to Gulf War syndrome. Is that fair?

Not really, says Johnson.

But he says the words he scribbled in the margins of submissions about long Covid have been published. He accepts that they have caused offence, and he says: “I regret it very, very much.”

He was trying to get to the truth of the matter. And it took him a long time to get a proper paper on it.

Keith shows a note where Johnson described long Covid as “bollocks” and “Gulf war syndrome stuff”.

Johnson’s comments on government minute
Johnson’s comments on government minute. Photograph: Covid inquiry

And he says the evidence shows that Johnson continued to take this view.

Even when he got a paper on it, Johnson said “it’s not exactly Gulf War syndrome”, Keith says.

Johnson says many people with Gulf War syndrome had terrible symptoms. But some people thought they were suffering from something related to the Gulf War, which was not related to it.

He says, with long Covid, he also wanted to find out what the Covid link was.

Updated

Q: Did you know the mayor of London was repeatedly excluded from Cobra meetings?

Johnson says Sadiq Khan, the mayor, was consulted a lot.

There was talk of locking down London first. But that idea was dropped, he says.

Q: The evidence from the metro mayors was that local leaders did not get enough information. That was a very significant failing, particular in regard to the tier system.

Johnson says he is grateful to all the mayors for the work they did.

Q: The inquiry has seen evidence that Manchester was punished for political reasons.

Johnson says he does not remember that. In Liverpool there was a real effort to get mass testing going, he says.

Johnson says with hindsight he thinks he should have spent more time during Covid working with devolved administrations

Johnson says, while taking account of the concerns of devolved administrations (DAs), he thinks the UK needs a better way of setting public health regulations for the UK in a pandemic.

(During Covid England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all set their own regulations, which often differed.)

Johnson says, with hindsight, he would have liked to have spend more time with the DAs.

Q: But in your witness statement you said it was wrong for the PM of the UK to hold meetings with the first ministers.

Johnson says he also thinks that.

Q: They can’t both be true.

Johnson says it can be worth doing things that are “constitutionally a bit weird” in the interests of fighting the pandemic.

He says they need “a better way of getting a unified message for the United Kingdom”.

Q: You said meeting with the DAs would look like a mini-EU. And you thought they leaked after Cobra meetings. And you accused them of taking decisions for political reasons.

Johnson says he is not sure he said that to them.

But he did think the coherence of the UK was being undermined.

He says:

Some form of integrated decision-making which does not leak is what you’re after.

Updated

A protester outside the Covid inquiry.
A protester outside the Covid inquiry. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

Comments have had to close for a bit, I’m afraid, because all our moderators have to attend a staff meeting. They should be open again around 3.30pm. I’m sorry about that.

Johnson says government may have pushed too hard in encouraging people back into office after lockdown

At the inquiry Hugo Keith KC is now asking about the end of the first lockdown.

He says Rishi Sunak was concerned about over-compliance with the stay-at-home instruction.

Q: In July 2021 did you say you had got the messaging wrong on this?

Boris Johnson says, as they came out of lockdown, he felt strongly that it was important to allow people some freedom. He wanted to see people back at work, he says.

But a lot of people were in a different place. They were still apprehensive. They did not want people lecturing them about what to do, he says.

Keith shows extracts from Sir Patrick Vallance’s diary in which Vallance writes about Johnson wanting to “let it rip” in the summer of 2020.

But he shows another message implying Johnson was concerned. Keith quotes the words at the top of this message as if they were from Johnson.

Johnson said he thinks Keith has got this wrong. It was Matt Hancock talking about rising cases, he says. He says, like all good cabinet ministers, Hancock was lobbying for more money for his department.

Message from Johnson
Message from Johnson Photograph: Covid inquiry

Updated

Before the break, Boris Johnson was asked if he should have waited to see if other measures were working before ordering the full lockdown on 23 March 2020. He said at that point it was “right to throw everything at it”.

He went on:

And we didn’t have any other shot, we didn’t have the systems to control the virus that perhaps I believed earlier in the month that we did.

I didn’t know what other tools I had, as prime minister, to protect large numbers of people from this virus and I felt, fundamentally, that I was out of time.

And what I believed in the previous week was that we still had some wiggle room because that seemed to be what I was hearing.

I might have been wrong but I took the view on the Sunday and Monday that we were just out of time and the thing was too big and the curve was too aggressive.

The inquiry is having a break until 3.10pm.

Q: Do you think the full lockdown could have been avoided if the other measures introduced beforehand, like the instruction to people to stay at home, had started earlier?

Johnson says he thinks that is unlikely.

Updated

Keith shows a message from Johnson on 26 March 2020, the day he announced the full lockdown, in which he expressed doubt about the measure.

Message from Johnson on 26 March 2020
Message from Johnson on 26 March 2020 Photograph: Covid inquiry

Johnson says he thought that lockdown was necessary, and that it did work.

But he says more work is needed to show exactly what impact it had.

UPDATE: Johnson said:

But I’ve got to tell you, in all honesty, I find it difficult to quantify the impact that those measures had, and the more we can do to explain why NPI [non-pharmaceutical intervention] measures of any kind why they’re necessary to the satisfaction of everybody, the easier it will be for government next time and the more public buy-in there will be.

Updated

Lady Hallett intervenes.

Q: When you decided to lock down, did you consider if there was a clear argument against lockdown?

Johnson says he did. But he gave that argument “pretty short shift”. He says he thought the job of government was to protect life. If there had been no lockdown, what was happening in Italy would have happened here. He goes on:

I had no other tool – literally nothing else.

Many commentators have criticised the inquiry for assuming that the lockdown was a good thing, and for not considering the downsides. But Keith has regularly been asking government witnesses, as he has just been asking Johnson, why they did not delay lockdown so they could see if the voluntary “stay at home” order was working.

Updated

Johnson claims he can't remember why he met Evgeny Lebedev at No 10 days before lockdown

Keith asks about Johnson’s meeting with Evgeny Lebedev, the Evening Standard owner, on 19 March 2020, in the week before the lockdown was formally announced. Why did it take place?

Johnson claims he cannot remember, but he says he thinks it was about Covid. As owner of a London paper, Lebedev had to know what was happening, he says.

Neither Keith nor Johnson name Lebedev.

Keith does not press Johnson about this.

It is widely assumed that this meeting took place to discuss Lebedev’s peerage, which at the time was being blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Johnson did not have face-to-face meetings with other newspaper owners at this point, and indeed people were being advised to avoid any unnecessary face-to-face meetings.

UPDATE: Johnson said:

I can’t remember what happened at that meeting, it was a very brief meeting.

The newspaper proprietor in question doubtless wanted to know about what was happening to London … and indeed the whole country and wanted to be informed and I wanted to be supportive.

Asked whether the meeting had been Covid-related, Johnson said:

I can’t remember but I’m absolutely certain it must have been.

The journalist Russell Scott says, when he submitted a Freedom of Information request, he was told that this was a personal/social meeting.

Updated

Johnson rejects claims he could not make up his mind about lockdown

Q: To what extent did you appreciate by the night of Sunday 15 March that a lockdown was essential? It was not imposed until Monday 23 March. And it was going to be technically complicated. Was it a) you deciding a lockdown was essential, but it would take; or b) you starting planning for one, but delaying the final decision to later?

Johnson says he was “increasingly reconciled” to the fact that he would have to do a huge amount more to suppress the virus.

The complications were enormous, he says.

His state of mind was – “I’m now more or less in virus-fighting mode”.

Q: But you were not entirely like that? Here are messages showing that you were still opposed to lockdown. You would have been inhuman if you had not oscillated. But is it fair to say you made your oscillation clear to all around you.

Johnson says it was his job to consider all the implications and to “test the policy”.

These messages refer to a conversation with the chancellor where they considered the downsides.

It would have been “negligent” not to consider those factors, he says.

But this “did not in any way divert us from the crescendo of actions that we took”.

Q: This is a poor example of executive function. You could not make up your own mind.

Johnson objects. For the first time, almost, he seems to be getting angry. He had the chancellor with him, he says. He was told there was a risk to the UK bond markets. He had to go through the arguments.

Q: You talked at this time about the danger of killing everyone to save “bedblockers”.

Keith shows an extract from a note of a meeting.

Johnson says this was an indication of the cruelty of the decision he had to take.

If he said something like that, it was to illustrate the point.

The comment was not designed to broadcast, he says.

Updated

Johnson says he does not recall Hancock calling for immediate lockdown on 13 March, as he claims he did

Q: Over the weekend of 14-15 March 2020 there was a change of strategy. Some people like Dominic Cummings were pushing for change. You know about the likely impact on the NHS. Why wasn’t the Department of Health and Social Care pushing for a different approach? It was still pushing for the “squashing the sombrero, herd immunity” strategy?

Johnson says they knew at that point they had to act. They still thought they had “a bit of time”, and that was what the Sage paper from 12 March seemed to say.

The shift on 13 March was about timing, he says.

There was “a confluence of opinion”, he says. On Saturday 14 March he was talking to Prof Sir Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance.

By 13 March Sage had realised something needed to be done, he says.

Q: Until Cummings talked about plan B, no one at DHSC said a new approach was needed.

Johnson says the Sage meeting was where the view changed.

Q: Matt Hancock says he called you on Friday 13 March and said there should be an immediate lockdown. Do you recall that?

Johnson says he does not. It has been a long time, he says.

As the inquiry heard last week, there is no written evidence to support Hancock’s claim he made this call. Hancock did not even mention it in the book he wrote about the pandemic.

Updated

Johnson says, with hindsight, he thinks the government should have stopped mass sporting events in early March.

Q: But not doing so was in accordance with your own libertarian instincts?

Johnson says at every stage he was thinking of the impact on people. What the government was going to do was “very destructive for a lot of people least able to bear the costs”.

Keith shows a graph from a government paper from 12 March 2020. It shows that, even with measures in place, the NHS was going to be overwhelmed.

(The black line shows the number of NHS beds. Even in the graph showing the peak of the virus suppressed, as a result of interventions, there are more hospital cases than beds.)

Extract from government paper from 12 March 2020
Extract from government paper from 12 March 2020 Photograph: Covid inquiry

Johnson says he was “bewildered” when he saw that chart. He says he “clocked” the danger. He goes on to say he thought “there must be a reason why we’re not being told to go urgently”.

He goes on:

I do remember looking at it and thinking there was something amiss.

Updated

Keith shows an exchange of messages from Sunday 15 March 2020 in which Johnson says they have “no time” given what was happening in Italy.

Message
Message Photograph: Covid inquiry

Johnson says on 12 March there was a press conference where he said a large number of people might die. It was “a pretty grim press conference”, he says.

He says they were asked about the way through. Sir Patrick Vallance said that they wanted to flatten the curve, with some measure of herd immunity a good outcome by the autumn. He says Vallance said it might not be necessary or desirable to stop everyone getting the virus.

Here is our live blog of that press conference.

He says at this point people thought the government wanted to let the virus spread unchecked.

That is not what the government wanted, he says. He says they had to do quite a lot of work to clear up that mess.

He says they hoped herd immunity would be “a byproduct” of what they were doing.

Keith shows a message from 5 March 2020 in which aides discuss telling Boris Johnson to stop saying it is “business as usual”.

Johnson says he does not remember that.

Keith asks if he understands that Sage was not able tell him what to do.

Johnson accepts that. It is like a doctor-patient relationship, he says. If you do this, this will happen, he says.

Johnson claims he had not been told to avoid shaking hands when he did so on hospital visit

Q: You shook hands with patients at a hospital on 1 March. Was that because you had not been advised not to shake hands?

Johnson claims he did not know about the advice, but he says in retrospect he should not have done that. But, he says, “I wanted to be encouraging to people.”

The inquiry hearing is resuming.

Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, starts by showing a WhatsApp message that Dominic Cummings sent to Lee Cain on 3 March 2020.

Message from Cummings
Message from Cummings Photograph: Covid inquiry

Boris Johnson says by this point he was rattled by what was happening in Italy.

But he says the part of the message that is accurate is what it says about his fear about the impact of policies on the economy.

Q: If you said “I don’t think anything can be done”, that is significant.

Johnson says he cannot remember what he said to Cummings, and he says he “would not place too much reliance” on Cummings’ evidence.

But he could not see what the plan was, he says.

The NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions – lockdown-type measures, and other Covid rules) were “pretty far-fetched”, he says.

Relatives of people who died during the pandemic outside the Covid inquiry today.
Relatives of people who died during the pandemic outside the Covid inquiry today. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA

And here is a summary of some of the key points from this morning by Ben Quinn and Matthew Weaver.

Here is Peter Walker’s story about the evidence at the Covid inquiry this morning.

Johnson says he did not consider ignoring advice from scientists that locking down too soon would be mistake

Keith says Johnson chaired his first Cobra meeting on Covid on 2 March.

He was told then that test and trace would not work.

Q: Prof Sir Chris Whitty said at that meeting that interventions should not be imposed too early, to ensure maximum effectiveness. To what extent did this idea influence your decision making?

Johnson says it was “the prevailing view for a long time”.

It was not just Whitty. At a press conference on 12 March Sir Patrick Vallance also made the same argument, he says.

Q: To what extent do you think you would have introduced measures earlier if you had not been told this.

Johnson says this is “fundamental”.

They did lock down. But it bounced back after they lifted restrictions, he says.

Keith takes him back to the question.

Q: Would you have gone earlier? How long a delay did this cause?

Johnson says he does not think he would have gone earlier, because he would have been guided by the advice.

To do this was not something to rush into.

Q: Did you consider over-ruling the CMO, saying public health demands a lockdown, regardless of whether people will get tired of them.

Johnson says:

The short answer is no. Absolutely candidly, I don’t remember saying to myself: ‘This is so bad, they must be wrong, I must ignore the scientific advice and the threats to public health and have worse outcomes if we go too early’, and ‘I got to deal with the problem in front of the windscreen. I got to deal with it now’.

I didn’t do that, perhaps with hindsight, I should have done but, as I said to you right at the outset of this hearing, I just don’t know the answer.

And that is the end of the morning’s hearing. They are back at 1.40pm.

Updated

Party leaders row over Rwanda agreement at PMQs

Starmer asks Sunak about the Rwanda agreement, joking that the Conservatives would have been seen as making the “gimmick” a “resounding success” if its purpose was to “get people out of the country who simply couldn’t deal with … three home secretaries”.

Sunak hits back, claiming Starmer “doesn’t understand” that deterrence is critical, in order to “break the cycle”. He says the government will do everything it takes to get the scheme working and stop the boats, and resorts to accusing Starmer of finding himself on the side of the people smugglers.

Starmer again calls the scheme a “gimmick”, noting when the government first announced it, they vowed to settle thousands of people, which was reduced to hundreds. He asks how many refugees from Rwanda will be coming here to the UK under the treaty? Given no one from the UK has yet been sent …

Sunak responds questioning if Labour has a plan to address the problem, and then quips that Starmer’s plan would be to “cook up a deal with the EU that would see 100,000 illegal migrants trebled on his watch”.

Starmer asks how much the Rwanda deal has cost Britain in total given the scheme is capped at Rwanda’s capacity, and the east African country would be able to turn asylum seekers away if they wanted to.

Sunak says he’s been “crystal clear” there is no incremental money but invites Starmer to support the plan.

Starmer says the Rwanda scheme costs hundreds of millions of pounds with nothing in return. Referring to claims the home secretary, James Cleverly, called the plan “batshit”, Starmer said: “I am beginning to see why the home secretary said the Rwanda scheme was something to do with ‘bat’, I think, was it?”

Sunak said there is a simple question: “If you believe in stopping the boats, as we on this side of the house do, you need to have an effective deterrent and returns agreement. It is as simple as that.” He went on to criticise Labour MPs who campaigned to block deportation flights of foreign criminals, citing that as a reason Starmer doesn’t back the Rwanda plan

Meanwhile, the SNP Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, asks Sunak if he’s worried that he’ll be the first Conservative party leader to lose a general election to a fellow Thatcherite, in reference to Starmer’s praise of the former Tory prime minister. He pits Labour and the Conservatives together based on their apparent stance on migration before asking why the prime minister thinks it’s acceptable to show “complete disregard” towards migrants.

Sunak replied: “It is important that those who come here contribute to our public services.”

Updated

Johnson says he recalls asking his advisers if the UK was facing a severe to mild flu, or pandemic, or something that would kill 500,000.

Keith shows an extract from a note from Imran Shafi, Johnson’s private secretary, in which he records Johnson warning about the danger of an over-reaction. This was on 28 February 2020.

Note of meeting
Note of meeting. Photograph: Covid inquiry

Johnson says he was conscious of the potential costs.

Q: So, instead of getting the government to respond, you warned about the possible over-reaction?

Johnson says he was asking for a menu of options.

Q: Do you accept the “level of seriousness” was not sufficiently communicated by you?

Johnson says they had discussed borders, and he has been told there were ample supplies of PPE. They had also discussed NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions). But there was no concept of lockdown then.

Q: There was not a proper debate about what to do.

Johnson said people still did not think the RWCS was likely.

Updated

Johnson says he does not recall being told Cobra conclusion from 26 February 2020 mass deaths increasingly likely

Keith asks about Johnson being at Chevening at this period.

Johnson says he does not accept claims he was doing nothing.

He says he was working, including having calls with President Xi of China and President Trump.

Q: No one is suggesting you were on holiday.

Except you, says Johnson.

Keith says he was referring to evidence given by Dominic Cummings. Johnson apologises for attributing that view to Keith.

Johnson says the number of potential fatalities under the reasonable worst-case scenario (520,000) was horrific. He could not believe it.

Q: Do you accept there was a lost opportunity in government to react in that two-week period? It took its eye off the ball.

Johnson says there were things the government could and should have done if it had known how fast the virus was spreading.

Keith shows minutes from a Cobra meeting on 26 February saying the RWCS was becoming the central planning assumption.

Minutes from Cobra meeting on 26 February 2020
Minutes from Cobra meeting on 26 February 2020. Photograph: Covid inquiry

Q: Were you told this?

Johnson says he does not remember this.

Updated

Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer clash over Margaret Thatcher at prime minister's questions

Rishi Sunak kicked off prime minister’s questions wishing the speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, a speedy recovery and offered condolences to the family and friends of Alistair Darling, Glenys Kinnock, and James Douglas-Hamilton, otherwise known as Lord Selkirk of Douglas, who “each made an enormous contribution to public life and will be deeply missed”.

The prime minister went on to apologise for the suffering of the Hillsborough families and said the government wouldl ensure their pain was not repeated.

Today ministers rejected the families’ call for a legally enforceable “duty of candour” but signed a charter to commit to transparency after public tragedies. Sunak said he hoped to meet the families in the new year.

Tory MP for Lichfield, Michael Fabricant, used a closed question to praise Margaret Thatcher and warmly welcome Keir Starmer to the “Thatcher fanclub”.

Sunak said he’s always delighted to welcome new Thatcherites from all sides of the house, but said it “says something” if the main “female and strong leader” Starmer could praise is Margaret Thatcher and not his own fantastic deputy, Angela Rayner.

The Labour MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion, asked the prime minister how he could justify taking food from the poorest children in her constituency as in March the government is set to end the household support scheme, which could end about 12,000 free school meals for the poorest children.

Sunak said he was ensuring no child was growing up in poverty with the government’s cost of living support, and highlighted the government’s holiday activity and food programme, which only runs during the longest school holidays

Updated

Johnson says by late February he 'should have twigged' about seriousness of Covid

Keith shows Johnson an email from Shafi, written on 24 February 2020, saying he would soon like to expose Johnson to decisions he would have to take about Covid.

Three days earlier 11 municipalities in Italy had locked down.

Email from Imran Shafi
Email from Imran Shafi. Photograph: Covid inquiry

Johnson says the scenes from Italy “really rattled me”. He remembers seeing a report saying they had an 8% fatality rate in Italy because they had an elderly population. He recalls thinking the UK had an elderly population too. He goes on:

We should have twigged, we should collectively have twigged, much sooner. I should have twigged.

Updated

Johnson says 'fallacious, inductive logic' led to government not taking seriously early estimate of possible Covid death toll

Keith shows a message from Dominic Cummings on 6 February 2020 saying Covid was likely to spread around the world.

Message from Dominic Cummings
Message from Dominic Cummings Photograph: Covid inquiry

Q: Why was your focus then on communications, not on preventing the spread?

Johnson says it was because they assumed it would be like other viruses, like Sars.

The scientific community within Whitehall at that stage was not telling us that this was something that was going to require urgent and immediate action.

He says they could see the mathematical implications of the reasonable worst case scenario (RWCS). But they did not think it would happen.

Q: But you were told Covid had a 2% fatality rate – much higher than those other viruses.

Johnson accepts that. But he says that “fallacious, inductive logic” meant they did not take those warnings as seriously as they should have done. He says they thought the RWCS would not materialise, but in this pandemic the outcome was close to the RWCS.

Updated

Q: Did you express scepticism about the possible number of deaths?

Johnson says he cannot remember that. But he can remember the impact of BSE in the UK, and the huge number of animals that had to be killed.

He wanted to probe the forecasts, he says.

Q: Do you accept that being informed about the possible fatality numbers was a lost opportunity?

Johnson says he would accept that his mindset, “like the mindset of the overwhelming majority of the ministers and officials in Whitehall, in [January to mid-February] was not as alarmed as we should have been”.

Updated

Q: Dominic Cummings says you asked at one point if people would think you were mad for not closing the borders?

Johnson says he may have said something like that. He thought the public would take that view.

Q: And Cummings says you were opposed to border controls because you thought Covid would be just like swine flu.

Johnson says he did want advice about borders.

He suggests countries that imposed border controls did better.

PMQs is about to start. My colleague Aletha Adu will be covering it, and posting about it here in the blog. I will keep going with the Covid hearing.

Updated

Johnson suggests government did not fully believe forecasts about potential Covid deaths in early 2020

Johnson says, again, that he and his colleagues did not comprehend at the start the risk.

He suggests that, although figures were produced with potential death tolls, people did not fully believe them. He says:

I don’t think we attached enough credence to those forecasts.

He describes himself as “agnostic” at this point.

He took what Matt Hancock was saying seriously, he says. But he was waiting for the advice to change.

Keith says Johnson says in his witness statement they vastly underestimated the seriousness of Covid in January 2020.

Updated

Keith asks Johnson why he was not warned at the end of January 2020 that there was a risk of a pandemic.

Johnson says it was at the end of Feburary that the alarm was truly raised.

Johnson defends not chairing early Cobra meetings on Covid himself

The inquiry is back.

Hugo Keith KC says he now wants to cover what happened in January and February 2020.

Q: Matt Hancock says he remembers warning you about Covid in January. Do you remember those conversations?

Boris Johnson says he doesn’t, but he says he spoke to Hancock a lot.

He recalls not being sure whether Covid was “going to turn into a typhoon or not”.

Q: There were five Cobra meetings on Covid. Did that not imply it was serious enough for you to get directly involved?

Johnson says a Cobra is a regular occurrence in government. The possibility of a Covid pandemic was not something that had really “broken upon the political world” or entered his consciousness as a potential disaster.

He was not asked about it at PMQs, he says.

He says he asked Hancock to keep him posted.

But, by the end of February, he was getting anxious.

Q: Did you discuss whether you should have been chairing any of those Cobra meetings?

Johnson says he recalls talking to his office about that.

Q: That was on 24 February. Did you consider chairing Cobra yourself before that. By 16 January it was spreading outside of China. Why, as PM, were you not informed?

Johnson says: “Here’s what I really think happened.”

People could see what was happening to the data, he says.

But they did not necessarily draw the right conclusions. That was “no fault of theirs”, he says. This was outside living memory.

I don’t think people computed the implications of that data, and it was not escalated to me as an issue of national concern until much later.

Q: You were PM. How could a government had failed to stop and think?

Johnson says people did not remember anything like this. But people did remember Sars and Mers and swine flu, and these did not cause serious problems for the UK.

Q: So it was a failed mindset?

Johnson said it was a human, natural response, based on people’s experience.

Updated

Before the break Hugo Keith KC showed extracts from Sir Patrick Vallance’s diary criticising the way decisions were taken at No 10.

Asked if he thought the system whereby he was reliant on advice from special advisers needed to change, Johnson stressed that his key advisers on Covid were Prof Sir Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance.

Q: Did you lose confidence in your cabinet secretary, Mark Sedwill?

Johnson said Sedwill decided to step aside.

Q: Did you lose confidence in Dominic Cummings, your chief adviser?

Johnson said he decided to stand aside too.

The inquiry is now taking a short break.

Johnson dismisses Simon Case's highly critical WhatsApp messages, claiming Thatcher's team feuded in private too

Keith shows the inquiry more WhatsApp exchanges about the culture at No 10, including this one, where Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, said he had “never seen a bunch of people less well equipped to run the country”.

Q: Doesn’t this show friction in government was causing a problem?

Johnson does not accept that.

He claims that, if WhatsApp messages were available from the Thatcher government showing what its members thought of each other, some of them would have been “pretty fruity”.

He says it would have been worse to have had a culture where people were “deferential” and “reluctant to make waves”.

UPDATE: Johnson said:

I think that the worst vice, in my view, would have been to have had an operation where everybody was so deferential and so reluctant to make waves that they never expressed their opinion, they never challenged and they never doubted.

It was much more important to have a group of people who are willing to doubt themselves and to doubt each other. And I think that that was creatively useful rather than the reverse.

Updated

Johnson claims he cannot recall being told talented people refusing to work at No 10 due to toxic culture

Keith asks about a claim from Helen MacNamara, the deputy cabinet secretary, that talented people would not work at No 10 because of the culture there.

Johnson claims he was not aware of that.

Keith says there is evidence Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, told him directly that “top-drawer people” were refusing to work in Downing Street because of the atmosphere there.

Johnson claims he cannot recall that.

He says he ran a harmonious team when he was mayor of London.

But he says at No 10 there should have been more women involved in some of the meetings.

UPDATE: Johnson said:

I think that the gender balance of my team should have been better …

I think sometimes during the pandemic, too many meetings were too male-dominated if I’m absolutely honest with you.

Updated

Johnson rejects claims toxic culture at No 10 was problematic, saying 'challenge' helpful and all governments similar

Keith says the inquiry is interested in the culture at No 10. It is not interested in the salaciousness of Dominic Cummings’ messages. But what he says about the culture at No 10 is relevant, he says.

Q: That material paints “an appalling picture of incompetence and disarray”.

Johnson says the inquiry has dredged up a phenomenal quantity of the type of material never available to a previous inquiry.

That is a good thing, because you can get a feeling for the relationships and texture.

Johnson says a lot of the language in those WhatsApp exchanges is unacceptable. He says he has apologised to one person over this.

But there is a distinction between what is said, and what the government does. He suggests it is not unusual for people in government to not like each other, but for them to get a lot done anyway. He refers to the Blair government as an example.

Q: There are extracts from Patrick Vallance’s diary that imply the opposite.

Johnson says there were a lot of talented people trying to do their best. Under stress, they were inclined to be critical of others. Any other administration would have been similar, he suggests.

Q: But do you accept that this related to the performance of government?

Johnson does – but he says this was healthy. He goes on:

We needed constantly to challenge ourselves and constantly to try to do better.

He says, if the WhatsApp messages were all: “Aren’t we doing brilliantly?”, the criticism would have been even stronger.

Q: You said in one message the government’s response had been “totally fucking hopeless”.

Johnson says it was not his job to say everything was great.

The government had notable achievements, he says.

But it was his job to ensure some “challenging” characters kept going.

UPDATE: Johnson said:

I think that actually what you’re looking at, in all this stuff, is a lot of highly talented, highly motivated people who are stricken with anxiety about what is happening about the pandemic, who are doing their best and who, like all human beings, under great stress and great anxiety about themselves and their own performance, will be inclined to be critical of others …

It would not have been right, if we’d had a load of WhatsApps saying, ‘aren’t we doing brilliantly folks, isn’t this going well’. I think your criticisms might have been frankly, even more pungent.

Updated

Q: Were you aware that Matt Hancock, the health secretary, was sometimes excluded from meetings where health policy was discussed?

Johnson says he does not accept that characterisation. A lot of things were very costly. He needed to have conversations with the Treasury, he says.

Updated

Johnson tells inquiry he only read minutes of Sage meetings 'once or twice'

Q: Who were you most reliant on for advice?

Johnson says he does not want to embarrass officials by naming them.

He says he had a superb deputy private secretary, and a brilliant private secretary for healthcare.

Keith asks to what extent Johnson came to rely on his advice.

Johnson says he relied on them, of course. But he goes on to say advisers advise, and ministers decide.

Q: Did you read Sage (the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) minutes?

Johnson says he may have looked at them “once or twice”. He says, in retrospect, it may have been “valuable to try to hear the Sage conversation”.

He implies he relied on Prof Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, and Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, who jointly chaired Sage.

Q: Did you not consider reading the minutes direct? Why did you not call for the primary material, particularly in the debate on behavioural fatigue?

Johnson says that it is a good question. But he was reliant on Whitty and Vallance, who are “outstanding experts in their field”.

Updated

Johnson claims cabinet 'more reluctant' to impose lockdown-type measures than he was

Keith asks about claims that cabinet was sidelined, and that it was not a place for serious discussions.

Johnson says he does not accept that. But he claims cabinet as a whole was “more reluctant” to impose NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions – lockdown-type measures and other rules about conduct) than he was.

Updated

Keith asks again if Johnson thinks that government decisions let to excess deaths being higher than they needed to be.

Johnson says, again, he does not know.

Johnson says there were some factors that made the UK particularly vulnerable to excess deaths.

We have a an elderly population, extremely elderly population. We do suffer, sadly, from lots of Covid-related comorbidities and we are a very densely populated country, the second most densely populated country, in Europe, and that that did not help.

Johnson says he is 'not sure' if government decisions led to Covid deaths being higher than necessary

Keith shows the inquiry an extract from Johnson’s witness statement. In it Johnson said:

We – I – unquestionably made mistakes, and for those I unreservedly apologise.

Extract from Johnson’s witness statement
Extract from Johnson’s witness statement Photograph: Covid inquiry

Keith asks what he is referring to. Johnson talks about mistakes with government communications.

Keith suggests Johnson cannot think that was the main mistake, and he asks again what Johnson was thinking off. Johnson does not give a clear answer. He says he expects to cover what happened, issue by issue, as the hearing goes on.

Q: Do you mean there were failings you got avoidably wrong? Or do you mean, with hindsight, you could have done better?

That’s a deterministic question, Johnson says.

Q: It’s an important one.

Johnson says with hindsight he can see they should have done things differently. But at the time they felt they were doing their best.

Q: Do you accept that overall the government decision making led materially to more excess deaths than might otherwise have been the case?

Johnson says he cannot give an answer to that question. “I’m not sure.”

But he says Keith presented a slide at an earlier hearing showing the UK second only to Italy in the league of excess deaths. That is not right, he says. The evidence is that the UK was “well down the European table” for excess deaths.

Keith says he does not accept that.

Johnson says he has seen data showing the UK 16th out of 33 countries for excess deaths.

Keith says, among western European countries, the UK had one of the worst records for excess deaths.

Updated

Johnson cannot explain why some WhatsApp messages missing from old phone, but says he did not remove them

Q: Why was your old phone missing around 5,000 WhatsApp messages when handed over to the inquiry?

Johnson says he cannot give a technical explanation, but he thinks it is something to do with it being reset.

Q: A technical report says there may have been a factory reset of the phone.

Johnson says he does not remember any such thing.

Q: Did you make it clear you wanted those messages disclosed?

Yes, says Johnson. He says, for the avoidance of doubt, he wants to say he has not removed any WhatsApp messages.

Hugo Keith KC is questioning Johnson.

He asks if Johnson’s approach has been to give all relevant material to the inquiry.

Johnson says that has been his view.

Keith shows WhatsApp exchanges, shown to the inquiry at a previous hearing, which implied that Johnson did not expect his messages to be disclosed.

Johnson says he does not remember that.

Updated

Johnson says he is 'deeply sorry' for pain and suffering experienced during pandemic

Boris Johnson starts saying he is “deeply sorry” about the pain and suffering experienced during Covid.

He says:

I understand the feelings of these victims and their families and I am deeply sorry for the pain and the loss and suffering of those victims and their families.

He also expresses his thanks “to the hundreds of thousands of healthcare workers, and many other public servants, people in all walks of life” for what they did to protect people.

Protest in Covid inquiry as Boris Johnson begins giving evidence

As Boris Johnson starts, there seems to be some protest in the room.

The cameras are not showing us what is happening, but Lady Hallett tells someone that unless they sit down, they will be asked to leave.

She then says they will have to leave.

Updated

Inquiry chair Lady Hallett issues reprimand over advance reports about what Johnson likely to say

Lady Hallett starts by expressing her “concern” about the reports in the papers about what Boris Johnson will say.

She says what witnesses say in witness statements is supposed to be confidential until those statements are published. She goes on:

I wish to remind all those involved in the inquiry process they must maintain this confidentiality so as to allow the sharing of materials prior to hearings between those most involved in the inquiry process. Failing to respect confidentiality undermines the inquiry’s ability to do its job fairly, effectively and independently.

Updated

What Johnson is expected to tell Covid inquiry, according to newspaper reports published in advance

As we report this morning, there has been plenty of coverage in the papers about what Boris Johnson is likely to say to the Covid inquiry. In fact, there has been more advance leaking than you get with a budget. Some of this seems to be authorised, although probably not all of it. (If the editor wants a story on what Johnson is expected to say, a resourceful journalist will provide one, regardless of whether or not the Johnson camp are cooperating.)

If Johnson is trying to influence Lady Hallett, the inquiry chair, he is bound to fail; you can’t spin a judge. But if his team has been engaged in a pre-briefing operation, as seems likely, their target will be public opinion, not the inquiry team.

Here is a round-up of what the papers have been saying.

On Saturday

The pre-hearing coverage kicked off with this story in the Times, in which Steven Swinford, Chris Smyth and Oliver Wright said Johnson would admit to mistakes. They said:

Boris Johnson will next week admit that he “unquestionably made mistakes” over Covid but insist that the decisions he took ultimately saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

In his evidence to the Covid public inquiry the former prime minister is expected to issue an unreserved apology and say that he and his government were initially far too complacent and vastly underestimated the risks posed by the virus.

He will argue that he had a “basic confidence that things would turn out alright” on the “fallacious logic” that previous health threats such as BSE and Sars had not proven as catastrophic as feared.

However, he is expected to say that, overall, the government succeeded in its central aim of preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed by making the “right decisions at the right times”.

On Sunday

There was plenty more on Sunday, of which the best article was probably Tim Shipman’s in the Sunday Times. He said Johnson would argue that the first lockdown was delayed because scientists argued that “behavioural fatigue” would stop people complying with lockdown measures after a while, which meant they should not start too early. Shipman said:

Johnson has spent, aides say, almost a year preparing for his appearance in front of Baroness Hallett and her panel. He will make the case that many of the explosive WhatsApp exchanges that have left his government looking like it was in the middle of a civil war were simply conversations around the issues, or “dark humour” — but that the key decisions were made in formal meetings based on this official advice. One minister from the Johnson government who has read his written evidence said: “I think he gives a good account of himself, actually.”

In the Sun Sophia Sleigh also said Johnson would seek to deflect blame onto the scientists. She said:

An ally of the ex-PM told The Sun on Sunday: “The only trolley involved were the trolleys full of vaccines Boris helped deliver for the UK. Boris only changed his views when the scientific advice changed. The experts kept changing their tune on issues.”

And Glen Owen in the Mail on Sunday said Johnson wants more focus on whether the Covid virus was invented by the Chinese.

On Monday

On Monday Ben Riley-Smith in the Daily Telegraph said Johnson would deny Dominic Cummings’ claim that in February 2020 he was on holiday at Chevening trying to finish his book about Shakespeare instead of focusing on Covid.

On Tuesday

On Tuesday Steve Swinford and Chris Smyth in the Times said Johnson would suggest that Prof Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, was responsible for the first lockdown being delayed. They said:

Boris Johnson will claim that he delayed implementing the first lockdown on the advice of Sir Chris Whitty amid concerns that people would tire of the restrictions and flout the rules.

The former prime minister’s statement to the Covid inquiry is expected to say that given the “massive disbenefits” of lockdown it was “obviously right” to ensure that it was not implemented too soon.

He will highlight a series of warnings from Whitty, the chief medical officer, about the risks of locking down too early.

In the Telegraph Ben Riley-Smith and Blathnaid Corless said much the same thing, although they also quoted a source saying Johnson would not be “blaming” the scientists. They said:

Asked how the former prime minister would respond to [criticism about the timing of the first lockdown] an ally of Mr Johnson told The Telegraph that he would point to shifting scientific advice.

The source said: “The scientific advice was right up until the last minute that lockdowns were the wrong policy and herd immunity was the right policy. People might get lockdown fatigue so you had to do it at the right time.”

The source added: “We are not seeking to blame the scientists. They were doing a good job. It is more about getting an accurate recall on how little certainty there was around lockdown in February and March 2020. The scientists have to deal with the changing facts.”

In a recent edition of his The Rest is Politics podcast, which he co-hosts with Rory Stewart, Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s former communications chief, recalled giving evidence to one of the Iraq inquiries. (I don’t think he was clear whether it was Hutton or Chilcot.) There were going to be protesters outside, and Campbell said he was offered the chance of going in by the back door. He refused, he said, and insisted on going in through the main entrance, ignoring the shouting.

This is what he posted on X this morning about Johnson dodging the protests at the Covid inquiry this morning.

What a coward. When the pandemic came he couldn’t be arsed to get from his bed in Chequers to Cobra meetings. But when there is a risk of being confronted by the consequences of his inactions he sneaks in as early as he can. Contemptible

Asked about Boris Johnson arriving three hours early for the Covid inquiry this morning, Chris Philp, the policing minister, joked “it’s the first time Boris has ever been early for anything”.

A van displaying a protest banner parked outside the Covid inquiry this morning.
A van displaying a protest banner parked outside the Covid inquiry this morning. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP
Protesters outside the Covid inquiry this morning.
Protesters outside the Covid inquiry this morning. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA
Protesters outside the Covid inquiry this morning.
Protesters outside the Covid inquiry this morning. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/Reuters

For Johnson to claim he saved thousands of lives would be 'distortion of truth', bereaved families claim

Outside the Covid inquiry representatives of families who lost loved ones during the pandemic are holding a mini press conference ahead of Boris Johnson’s evidence. Aamer Anwar, lead solicitor for the Scottish Covid Bereaved, was the first speaker. He said the evidence presented to the inquiry so far had presented “a deadly culture of impunity, of incompetence, of arrogance and blaming everyone else but themselves”.

UPDATE: Anwar said:

Boris Johnson is expected to issue an apology this morning.

Yet he will claim he saved thousands of lives.

For many of the bereaved that will be a grotesque distortion of the truth.

In Boris Johnson’s words, instead of solving a national crisis, his government presided over a total disgusting orgy of narcissism.

He did let the bodies pile up and the elderly were treated as toxic waste.

As a result, over a quarter of a million people died from Covid. They cannot speak for themselves but their families, the bereaved and all those impacted by Covid deserve the truth today.

Aamer Anwar reading his statement to the media.
Aamer Anwar reading his statement to the media. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA

Updated

Boris Johnson arrives early at Covid inquiry and is expected to say he got 'most of the big calls right'

Good morning. Boris Johnson has never been known for his punctuality. As a journalist he was famous for submitting his articles well beyond the deadline, and as PM he was not one of those ministers obsessed with starting and finishing meetings on time.

But this morning he arrived three hours early at the Covid inquiry, where he is due to start a two-day evidence session at 10am. Perhaps he’s got some last-minute reading to do. The fact that he managed to get in before relatives of people who died in the pandemic, who have been outside protesting at some hearings, were present may just have been a fortuitous bonus.

Henry Zeffman from the BBC has a picture.

When he left office, Johnson’s supporters used to claim that, on Covid, he got “all the big calls right”. More recently some of the briefing by his allies has settled on the line that he got most of the big calls right. The next two days will help to determine how the inquiry – and history – assesses his performance as a pandemic PM, and the final judgment is likely to be a bit closer to the “he didn’t get everything wrong” category.

As Peter Walker, Pippa Crerar and Ben Quinn report in their preview story, Johnson has been criticised for the extensive briefing about what he is going to say that has already appeared in the papers.

I will be focusing mostly on the Covid inquiry today. But I will break away to cover PMQs at noon, and if there are any other big political stories, they will feature too. We are still waiting for the government to finalise and publish its legislation intended to enable Rwanda deportation flights to go ahead, and that is expected before the end of the week.

If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Tom Hardy's Venom And Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man Crossover Teased.
Fan trailer 'Venom: The Last Dance' hints at a clash between Tom Hardy's Venom and Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man 3, sparking exc...
Top News
Top News
The Anxious Generation wants to save teens. But the bestseller’s anti-tech logic is skewed
There’s no doubt about the mental health crisis facing young people. Jonathan Haidt blames our devices – which oversimplifies the problem
The Guardian - US
The Guardian - US
How to play with Barbie dolls: 6 ways to use the iconic doll as a positive role model at home
If you have a little one who loves to play with Barbie, there are lots of positive ways in which you can encourage them to play in a way that helps their development and self-esteem. We’ll show you how.
GoodToKnow
GoodToKnow
7 Google Docs keyboard shortcuts to get more done in less time
Google Docs is a great free online word processor, and you can get a lot of productivity out of it once you know these keyboard shortcuts.
Tom’s Guide
Tom’s Guide
Woman Misses Her Freckles So She Paints Them On, Gets Called Out For ‘Cultural Appropriation’
Cultural appropriation in beauty and fashion is nothing new. But today, it seems impossible that white models could walk a runway in dreadlocks, tribal and Native American dress, or geisha makeup and kimonos. Appropriation happens when consumers or companies use and manufacture products that either promote cultural stereotypes or take…
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
50 Texts Women Got From Men That Are A Crash Course In How Not To Communicate
For many of us, texting is a huge part of our lives. However, some messages can take an unexpected turn for the bizarre, hilarious, and even downright cringy. The post 50 Texts Women Got From Men That Are A Crash Course In How Not To Communicate first appeared on Bored…
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play