Early evening summary
The prime minister’s wife Akshata Murty has met a group of Chelsea Pensioners in Downing Street where she hosted a reception ahead of Armistice Day, PA Media reports. PA says the group, which also included minister for veterans’ affairs Johnny Mercer, posed outside No 10 wearing Royal British Legion (RBL) poppies.
Conservative MPs who had been lobbying for this Saturday’s pro-Palestinian march not to go ahead would have preferred if the police had taken a different view but they accept Scotland Yard’s decision and its operational independence, according to one of the MPs behind the desecration of war memorials bill.
James Sunderland, the MP for Bracknell and a former colonel in the army who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said:
The important thing is that we must not create a situation that could lead to further instability on the streets.
I would have wanted to see the protest march not authorised on Saturday and I also believe that it would have benefited the organisers’ cause if they had taken a decision not go ahead at the weekend.
It was a matter of the timing – I have no problem with lawful protest marches in London – but there have been questions about the unintended consequences of this and the combination of factors. We’ve had the Just Stop Oil nonsense during the week and there is also the talk of far right groups coming out this weekend.
The desecretion of war memorials bill started as a backbench measure, but was incorporated within government legislation. It increases the penalty for the vandalism of war memorials.
Sunak defends allowing pro-Palestinian march to go ahead on Saturday, saying it's test of UK's commitment to freedom
Rishi Sunak has issued a statement following his meeting today with Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan police to discuss the pro-Palestinian march scheduled for Saturday
This morning Sunak said he wanted to “hold [Rowley] accountable” for his decision to rule that he has no legal grounds for initiating the process that would lead to the march being blocked. The Met would not have the final say, because under the law it would have had to ask the Home Office for permission to issue a banning order. But Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has been strongly hinting for days that she wants the march banned.
Sunak also said this morning that he found the prospect of the march going ahead on Saturday, Armistice Day, “disrespectful” because of the events going on at the Cenotaph to commemorate the anniversary of the moment the first world war ended.
But in his statement this afternoon Sunak adopts a different tone. He seems to have abandoned any hope of getting Rowley to rethink his decision (if that was his intention).
More significantly, Sunak is now saying that allowing the march to go ahead is a sign of the nation’s commitment to freedom – the value celebrated on Armistice Day, as people remember why people gave their lives fighting for their country. This is not an argument that Braverman, or anyone else in government, has been making in recent days.
In his statement Sunak says:
This weekend people around the UK will come together in quiet reflection to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. It is not hyperbole to say that we are the beneficiaries of an inheritance born of their sacrifice.
It is because that sacrifice is so immense, that Saturday’s planned protest is not just disrespectful but offends our heartfelt gratitude to the memory of those who gave so much so that we may live in freedom and peace today.
But part of that freedom is the right to peacefully protest. And the test of that freedom is whether our commitment to it can survive the discomfort and frustration of those who seek to use it, even if we disagree with them. We will meet that test and remain true to our principles.
Sunak also says he was reassured to hear the pro-Palestinian march would not clash with the events at the Cenotaph. He says:
This afternoon I asked the Metropolitan police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, to come to Downing Street and provide reassurances that the police are taking every step necessary to safeguard Remembrance services, provide reassurance to those who wish to pay their respects across the country and keep the public safe from disorder this weekend.
It’s welcome that the police have confirmed that the march will be away from the Cenotaph and they will ensure that the timings do not conflict with any Remembrance events. There remains the risk of those who seek to divide society using this weekend as a platform to do so. That is what I discussed with the Metropolitan police commissioner in our meeting. The commissioner has committed to keep the Met police’s posture under constant review based on the latest intelligence about the nature of the protests.
And finally, to our veterans and their families, I assure you that we will do everything it takes to protect this special weekend for you and our country, as we come together to reflect on those who protected our freedom.
In fact, the Palestine Solidary Campaign was making it clear last week that it had no intention of taking its march anywhere near the Cenotaph, and that it would not be starting until almost two hours after the silence at 11am.
Updated
My colleague John Crace has been reading Nadine Dorries’ new book about the downfall of Boris Johnson, entitled The Plot – or [Lost] The Plot, as they’re calling it in Westminster – so the rest of us don’t have to. Here is his digested read.
Updated
RMT and train operators reach breakthrough in national rail row
The RMT union has reached a possible deal with train operators to resolve their long-running national rail dispute, allaying fears of a repeat of last year’s Christmas strikes, Gwyn Topham reports.
Covid inquiry learns how Sedwill used crude joke in private to ridicule Hancock's sycophancy towards Johnson
During the Covid inquiry session with Mark Sedwill, counsel for the inquiry, Hugo Keith KC, seemed more reluctant than usual to have some of the documents he was referring to presented on the screen. They seemed to be particularly coy about this one, which was only shown very briefly. It shows Sedwill, in an exchange with Simon Case, his successor as cabinet secretary, describing Matt Hancock on 19 June 2020 as “so far up BJ’s [Boris Johnson’s] arse his ankles are brown”.
The BBC’s Peter Saull got a screenshot.
Extraordinary text message exchange between Simon Case and Mark Sedwill just briefly shown to the Covid inquiry before being taken off the screen. Look at the language about Matt Hancock 👀 pic.twitter.com/sOvJFl8mA8
— Peter Saull (@petesaull) November 8, 2023
Nickie Aiken has become the latest Conservative MP to criticise Suella Braverman, the home secretary, for calling homelessness a “lifestyle choice” at the weekend and proposing a ban on charities distributing tents to rough sleepers. Aiken told Radio 5 Live:
Having been responsible for rough sleeping policy in Westminster when I was a city councillor, I have met scores of rough sleepers over the years and I can’t recall one of them telling me it was a lifestyle choice.
I would say that her language is wrong and I would say it’s not about tents. It’s not about the tents – let’s move away from the tents and think about the people inside those tents.
The UK has imposed new sanctions on 29 individuals and entities operating in and supporting Russia’s gold and oil sectors, the Foreign Office has announced. James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, said the UK was determined to keep “tightening the screws on Moscow” following its illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Starmer criticises PM for wanting to hold Met 'accountable' over pro-Palestine march, saying it's Braverman who's at fault
Keir Starmer has criticised Rishi Sunak for saying this morning that he wanted to hold the Metropolitan police “accountable” for its decision to allow the pro-Palestinian march in London to go ahead on Saturday, Armistice Day. In a message on X, Starmer said Sunak should be holding Suella Braverman, the home secretary, to account instead for “picking a fight with the police”.
Remembrance events must be respected. Full stop.
But the person the PM needs to hold accountable is his Home Secretary. Picking a fight with the police instead of working with them is cowardice.
The Tories put party before country. Labour will deliver the change Britain needs.
Remembrance events must be respected. Full stop.
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) November 8, 2023
But the person the PM needs to hold accountable is his Home Secretary. Picking a fight with the police instead of working with them is cowardice.
The Tories put party before country. Labour will deliver the change Britain needs.
Updated
Johnson claims he had no concerns about performance of any cabinet minister over Covid, including Hancock, inquiry told
Keith referred to an extract from Boris Johnson’s witness statement to the inquiry in which Johnson said he never had any concerns about any cabinet minister, including Matt Hancock. Johnson said:
I did not have any concerns regarding the performance of any cabinet minister including Matt Hancock. I do not think that I received any advice from Sir Mark Sedwill that Matt should be removed.
Sedwill said he did not provide any formal advice to Johnson to sack Hancock. But he said Johnson “would have been under no illusions as to my view about what was best”.
Updated
Sedwill says 'constant, destabilising attacks' on his position as cabinet secretary got worse after Johnson became PM
Keith asks about the conversation Sedwill had with Boris Johnson in May 2020 where Sedwill agreed to move on later that year.
Q: Did that conversation affect the stability of the civil service?
Sedwill says there was a discussion at that meeting, but Sedwill says he did not decide to leave until early June.
He says the departure of a cabinet secretary would inevitably be destabilising.
Some colleagues urged him to stay on, he says.
But he says the “constant, destabilising attacks” on him and the position of cabinet secretary were damaging. He says this pre-dated Johnson, but got worse when Johnson was PM.
For example, there was a false claim that Sedwill wanted to delay Brexit.
Sedwill says: “There is only so much lightning a lightning conductor can take.”
He says he thought it would be better to have a new cabinet secretary, because someone appointed by them would not be subject to those attacks.
Updated
Sedwill joked about need to sack Hancock 'to save lives and protect the NHS', Covid inquiry told
Keith is asking now about Hancock, and he cites comments from Sedwill in his private messages disparaging the health secretary.
Sedwill says there was a problem with Hancock. He says he urged Boris Johnson to consider moving him.
Q: You said Johnson should sack him?
Sedwill said he used that phrase in a message to Simon Case, but not when talking to Johnson directly.
Keith says the message said they should sack Hancock “to save lives and protect the NHS”.
Sedwill says this was “gallows humour”. (It is a joke about the the government’s Covid slogan, ‘Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives.’)
Updated
'Feral ... brutal and useless' - Covid inquiry hears fresh evidence about how Sedwill rated Johnson and his team
Keith asks about Boris Johnson. Lee Cain, his communications director, said this was the wrong crisis for his skill set. Dominic Cummings also criticised Johnson’s decision-making abilities.
Sedwill says he recognises these opinions, but would not put it like that.
He says his job was to build around any PM a set of mechanisms to allow them to make decisions.
Part of my job was to build around any prime minister a mechanism or a set of mechanisms that enabled them to make decisions, and then those decisions to be enacted effectively.
It would not have been responsible to stop trying to find a way of working with the PM, he says.
Keith says he is not saying Sedwill should have done that.
Sedwill says at some points Johnson would be gung-ho, and at other points he would be reasonable and take decisions. It was a “dialectic” approach. He says this was exhausting, but Sedwill says he sought to make allowance for this.
Q: These complaints continued. Doesn’t that show that your attempts to build a system to manage this failed?
Sedwill says he does not accept that. He says the complaints relate to how Johnson took decisions. He could not change that. But he wanted to create a system that allowed decisions taken this way to be implemented. He tried to ensure that, whatever was happening in the inner circle, cabinet ministers were involved in them.
Keith quotes an extract from Sir Patrick Vallance’s diary, from August 2020, where Vallance quoted Sedwill as saying: “This administration is brutal and useless.”
Sedwill says he does not remember making the comment, but says he does not doubt the accuracy of what Vallance said.
I can’t actually recall what might have prompted it but … I don’t doubt Sir Patrick’s memory. It must have been a moment of acute frustration with something.
Keith quotes from another exchange, where Simon Case, Sedwill’s successor, described the PM and his associates as “feral”. Case said:
It is like taming wild animals. Nothing in my past experience has prepared me for this madness. The PM and the people he chooses to surround himself with are basically feral.
Sedwill agreed, saying: “I have the bite marks.”
This is from the FT’s Laura Hughes.
Messages exchanged between two of the top civil servants during pandemic.
— Laura Hughes (@Laura_K_Hughes) November 8, 2023
Simon Case: “It’s like taming wild animals... The PM and the people he chooses to surround himself with are basically feral”.
Mark Sedwill: “I have the bite marks.” pic.twitter.com/DoJUn4vJzn
Q: Who were you talking about?
Sedwill says there was sometimes “gallows humour” in these circumstances.
Q: This culture was having an impact on how decisions were taken.
Sedwill says it was a very stressful period. But, on the really big decisions, he suggests the right decisions were taken at the right time. Other administrations came to similar decisions within the same timescale.
Updated
Keith is now asking about Dominic Cummings’ criticisms of the Cabinet Office. He describe it as a “dumpster fire”.
Sedwill says some of what Cummings said was fair, but most of it wasn’t.
Sedwill tells Covid inquiry there were problems with accuracy of what Matt Hancock said
The Covid inquiry is back from lunch and Hugo Keith KC is still questioning Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary.
Keith asks about an exchange that Sedwill had with Simon Case, who succeeded him as cabinet secretary, where Case said the legitimacy of the government had been eroded.
Sedwill says he thinks that is a reference to Dominic Cummings going to Barnard Castle.
He says he was particularly concerned about the response of Matt Hancock, the health secretary, and Suella Braverman, the attorney general. (Hancock and Braverman both issued statements supporting Cummings, which implied they were prejudging any decision about whether he broke lockdown rules.)
Keith points out that in the same exchange, Sedwill questions whether Matt Hancock, the health secretary, can be trusted.
Sedwill accepts this was an issue. He says his deputy, Helen MacNamara, covered this in her evidence to the inquiry this last week.
Sedwill also says the CW in this exchange probably refers to Chris Wormald, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health, and not Chris Whitty.
UPDATE: Keith said:
The process by which Mr Hancock’s truthfulness, or candour, or lack of candour or general approach, however one describes it … was not an issue that was confined to perhaps one or two individuals, notably Mr Cummings … There was a general issue surrounding Mr Hancock. Is that a fair summary?
And Sedwill replied:
Yes and you heard from Helen MacNamara on that last week.
This is from the Times’ Chris Smyth.
Mark Sedwill now adopting the default strategy for witnesses having a tough time at Covid inquiry
— Chris Smyth (@Smyth_Chris) November 8, 2023
If in doubt, dump on Matt Hancock
Q: "There was a general issue a general problem surrounding Mr Hancock [and his truthfulness] Is that fair summary?"
A: "Yes"
Updated
Labour says Sunak has 'no grip on reality' after he wrongly claims debt is falling
Yesterday, in a video released on social media, Rishi Sunak claimed “debt is falling”.
This King’s Speech delivers change.
— Rishi Sunak (@RishiSunak) November 7, 2023
Change in our economy.
Change in our society.
Change in our communities.
It takes long-term decisions for a brighter future ⬇️
But it’s not. As Ben Zaranko, an economist from the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank, told Bloomberg:
Public sector debt is currently rising in cash terms, real terms, and, most importantly, as a percent of national income.
Sunak may have been referring to a forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility saying public sector debt should be falling towards the end of the decade.
Labour said the error showed Sunak had “no grip on reality”. In a statement Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said:
The prime minister appears to have no grip on the reality of 13 years of Tory economic failure.
Rishi Sunak promised to cut debt, but the national debt has hit record levels, surpassing £2tn for the first time ever.
Labour will introduce tough new fiscal rules to build a rock of economic stability, never playing fast and loose with the economy.
Updated
Tory peer Nicholas Soames backs Met's decision to allow pro-Palestinian march and urges PM not to play politics with issue
Nicholas Soames, the Tory peer and grandson of Winston Churchill, has said that Rishi Sunak’s government should be “very careful” about “playing politics” with fundamental British freedoms.
Referring to government moves to stop the pro-Palestinian march going ahead in London on Saturday, Soames told the Guardian:
The government needs to proceed extremely carefully in this matter. Tens of millions of people died in two world wars so that British people have the right and freedom to express their beliefs. You cannot just decide that this is not the case and put the head of the Met under this kind of pressure.
If the Met chief, who I have a great deal of time for, says there is no good reason to ban the march, there is no good reason for banning the march. Most of the people who plan to attend the march have a point to make and plan to do so peacefully. If a small number of people cause trouble, the police can deal with it,
The government needs to be very careful to make sure they do not look as if they are playing politics. They need to be very careful that this is not some sort of gimmick. Operational matters are for the commissioner. It is his judgment that should count and I would caution the government to be very cautious about eroding freedoms.
Updated
Keith shows Sedwill an email from Simon Case (who succeeded Sedwill as cabinet secretary) in which Case praised for Sedwill for arranging not to let Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, and Prof Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, to attend a meeting where the lifting of restrictions was discussed in May 2020. Case said the decision to exclude the two was a “genius” move, which helped a decision to be taken.
Sedwill says Johnson was at his best in small meetings. He says Vallance and Whitty had plenty of access to Johnson anyway, and he says Vallance was happy with what was agreed.
They have now stopped for lunch.
Updated
No 10 rejects claim Sunak trying to pressure Met into banning pro-Palestinian march by vowing to hold it 'accountable'
Downing Street has rejected claims that Rishi Sunak’s comment this morning about holding the Metropolitan police “accountable” for its decision to allow the pro-Palestinian march to go ahead on Saturday amounted to putting pressure on the commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley.
When this claim was put to him, the PM’s spokesperson replied:
No, that’s part and parcel of how government and the Met operate. The Met are operationally independent, it’s the job of the prime minister and the government to hold them to account for their approach. So, that is what the prime minister will be doing.
Keith asks Sedwill about a note he wrote to the PM as the first wave of Covid was coming to an end saying it appeared the UK was doing worse than other countries.
Sedwill says he was referring to the excess deaths figures, which seemed to show the UK doing worse than comparable countries.
Keith is now asking about what happened when Boris Johnson fell ill.
Sedwill says it was clear that Dominic Raab, the first secretary, should take over in the event of Johnson being incapacitated.
Q: When Johnson came back to work, to what extent was he affected by his illness?
Sedwill says there is a broader point about Johnson’s decision-making style.
Keith says they will come back to that.
Sedwill says he will leave that for now.
But he says it took Johnson a long time to recover. The issue was stamina, he says.
Updated
Sedwill says he thinks Covid deaths would have been reduced if 'stay at home' order had been given earlier
Sedwill accepts that the “stay at home” order given on 16 March could have been given earlier.
Q: And if it had, the lockdown could have been avoided?
Sedwill says that is possible. But he says he is “highly sceptical” about whether the lockdown could have been avoided entirely.
He says proper academic research is needed to show what might have happened if the soft lockdown had happened earlier.
But he says he accepts that acting early would probably have had a “positive effect” on casualties.
It might not have avoided the need for lockdown. It is more likely to have had an impact on the duration of the lockdown, he says.
Updated
Keith is now asking about the lockdown decision announced on Monday 23 March.
He says Boris Johnson started work on what he was going to say at 2.05pm on the Monday.
But the Cobra meeting where this was discussed did not take place until 5pm, and the cabinet meeting to discuss this did not take place until the following day.
He says this implies the decision was not taken by cabinet – even though Sedwill said earlier cabinet should be the key decision-making body.
Sedwill accepts this. But he says the decision to have a lockdown had been taken in a separate Covid-S meeting. He says that was constitutionally proper.
Updated
Sedwill apologises for proposing in private chickenpox party-type approach to Covid, saying it now sounds 'heartless'
Keith asks about the comment from Sedwill implying a chickenpox party approach might work for Covid.
Sedwill says this remark was made before the meetings had taken place where No 10 realised a new approach was needed. He says when Ben Warner, another official, challenged what he said, he realised the chickenpox analogy was inappropriate. He says this was a remark made in private.
He says:
These were private exchanges and I certainly had not expected for this to become public.
I understand how, in particular, the interpretation that has been put on it, it must have come across as someone in my role was both heartless and thoughtless about this, and I genuinely am neither. But I do understand the distress that must have caused and I apologise for that.
Updated
Keith is now asking about the switch to a suppression strategy.
Sedwill says did not see this as a switch from plan A to plan B. He says he thought this was an acceleration and intensification of measures Sage had already said might be necessary.
How Sedwill told Cummings he would not let key decisions be taken by PM and 'bunch of Spads' with no ministers or experts
Keith is now showing the inquiry an exchange of emails between Dominic Cummings and Sedwill on 11 March 2020. Cummings wanted to set up a new meeting to deal with Covid decisions.
In his reply, Sedwill said he objected to the idea that key decisions would be taken by “a bunch of No 10 Spads (special advisers)“ and the PM, with no ministers, no experts and no scientists there. “We are not running a dictatorship here,” he said.
We are not running a dictatorship here and the PM is not taking nationally significant decisions with a bunch of No10 SpAds and no ministers, no operational experts and no scientists. If necessary, I will take over the 8:15 slot and chair a daily meeting myself.
Sedwill says the email expressed “pretty pungently my views about collective government”.
Updated
At the inquiry Keith showed Sedwill this document, from a report from the civil contingencies secretariat, illustrating possible deaths from Covid. It was drawn up on 28 February 2020.
Keith asked why levels of alarm in government were not higher as a result. “They should have been,” Sedwill said.
Updated
Back at the Covid inquiry Keith is now asking about the Covid action plan published in early March.
Helen MacNamara, Sedwill’s deputy, told the inquiry last week that this was an extraordinary document because so many of its assumptions collapsed within weeks. Sedwill agrees with this description.
Q: Why did the government not know when it published this document that control of Covid had been lost, because sustainable community transmission was taking place?
Sedwill says that message did not get through the system.
Sunak vows to hold Met chief ‘accountable’ over Armistice Day march
Rishi Sunak has vowed to hold the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, “accountable” for his defiance of demands for a ban on a pro-Palestinian march planned for Armistice Day, Daniel Boffey reports.
Covid inquiry KC Hugo Keith says it's 'regrettable' work on Covid at top of government slowed in February while PM on holiday
Back at the Covid inquiry Keith is now asking about the period when Boris Johnson was on holiday in mid-February. For 10 days he did not get emails about Covid, Keith says.
Sedwill says he would have expected the work on Covid to continue during this period.
Q: But the rate of work did seem to slow down. At the higher level of government, not a lot of work seems to have been done. That is “regrettable”, isn’t it?
Sedwill says he would have expected the work to continue.
Updated
Sunak won't rule out plan to stop tents being distributed to homeless people being included in criminal justice bill
Rishi Sunak has said people should not be criminalised for having nowhere to live – but declined to rule out a restriction on tents for homeless people, PA Media reports.
On a visit to a school this morning, asked if Suella Braverman’s plan to stop charities giving tents to people sleeping rough would be in the criminal justice bill, Sunak replied:
I don’t want anyone to have to sleep rough and I’m proud of the government’s track record over the past few years in tackling that.
Sunak said the police should have the power to deal with “intimidating or violent conduct”. He went on:
We said earlier in the year that we didn’t want anyone to be criminalised for not having somewhere to live and that’s why we were going to repeal something called the Vagrancy Act, which is an outdated piece of law from the 1800s, and at the same time as part of that plan we want to make sure that intimidating or violent conduct, that the police do have the powers to tackle that.
Sunak refused to repeat Braverman’s claim that sleeping rough is a “lifestyle choice”.
Asked if he felt Braverman was supporting or undermining him, the PM said: “What the home secretary and the government is doing is focus on people’s priorities.”
As PA reports, Downing Street sources said the Braverman plan to stop charities handing out tents to the homeless is still “undergoing scrutiny”.
Covid inquiry chair suggests ministers should have focused more on possible death scenarios, not just worst-case scenario
Keith quotes from the minutes of a cabinet meeting on 6 February 2020 saying Boris Johnson warned against over-reacting to the threat from Covid.
Sedwill says at this point the scientific advice was that the worst-case scenario was still unlikely.
If you look earlier in that cabinet minute, it is still the case that the scientific advice is essentially suggesting that the worst-case scenario is unlikely, is indeed very unlikely. So that, undoubtedly, would have informed the way ministers were thinking about this.
The prime minister in that summary is trying to balance the tensions.
Heather Hallett, the chair, intervenes. She says if the worst-case scenario was 800,000 deaths, that implies anything less than the worst case would still be very, very serious.
Sedwill accepts that. He says focusing just on the reasonable worst-case scenario could be problematic.
Hallett asks if anyone told ministers not to focus on the reasonable worst-case scenario, but to ask instead what the chances were of a large number of deaths.
Sedwill agrees with her point. He says ministers should have focused on likely and possible scenarios, not just the worst-case scenarios.
They are now holding a 10-minute break.
Updated
Keith shows Sedwill an exchange that he had with Chris Wormald, permanent secretary at the Department of Health, in early February where Sedwill challenged the figures being given for possible deaths.
Sedwill says he cannot recall the details of this. But he was concerned about the worst-case death toll numbers moving around hugely, making it harder for people to take them seriously.
He says the difference between 300,000 and 600,000 deaths would not have led to a difference in terms of the decision taken. But he says it would be easier to have confidence if the numbers if they did not keep changing.
Updated
Keith quotes from an email from Prof John Edmunds, the epidemiologist, saying that, given the speed at which the virus was spreading, contact tracing on its own was unlikely to make much difference.
Sedwill says the consequences of the lack of a contact tracing capability were not fully understood.
Q: None of the plans that were in place dealt with stopping the virus entering the UK or spreading. Was that understood?
Sedwill says the UK did not have the capability in place to do that. Countries in Asia, where borders were closed, did have that capability, he says. He goes on:
I wouldn’t claim to have had enough knowledge myself to know that that was a capability that was important, or indeed that it was missing.
Q: That capability was not a matter for debate at the top of government.
Sedwill accepts that. He says the capability needed to stop the virus could not have been constructed in the time available.
But there was a lot of discussion about delaying the spread of the virus (squashing the sombrero, as Boris Johnson put it).
Sedwill says he should have 'interrogated' Covid plan supposed to be in place in February 2020 more carefully
Sedwill says at this point he thought that, if Covid did arrive in the UK, it would be possible to manage the extent of its spread, but that it would not be possible to stop it spreading at all.
My understanding from the briefings we had was that it might be possible to manage the spread of the virus, but that it was inevitable because no-one had immunity, that it would spread through the population.
During the first half of February scientists had a good understanding of the nature of the virus, and the number of deaths that might occur if it were allowed to spread. But there was also an assumption that plans were in place to stop this happening, he says.
He says he and others should have “interrogated” those plans “more carefully”.
Updated
Keith says the first Cobra meeting on Covid was held on 24 January, and another was held on 29 January.
He says Cobra was told on 29 January that there was a risk of the virus escaping from China, and that this would lead to Covid spreading in the UK.
Q: Did you accept that?
Sedwill says that this point this was just seen as a worst-case scenario. He says the chief medical office, Prof Chris Whitty, was only putting the probability of this at one in 10. By the end of February it was one in five, Sedwill says.
Updated
Sedwill says he initially resisted calls for Cobra meeting on Covid because he feared Hancock using it for PR reasons
Keith is only now asking about Covid. All the questions so far have been about process.
Sedwill says, when concerns about Covid arose, he did not agree to a meeting of the Cobra emergency committee taking place immediately. He wanted to ensure that the meeting was prepared for. And he was concerned that having a Cobra meeting might alarm people.
He says there had been a history of Cobra meetings being called “for communications purposes” – and not for decision making.
But, after two days, he was persuaded a Cobra meeting was necessary.
UPDATE: Sedwill said:
I felt that a Cobra which might have been convened primarily for communications purposes wasn’t wise. Two days later I was advised there was a genuine cross-government basis for it and I agreed.
Keith asked:
May we be plain please as to what you mean by communications purposes. Were you concerned that the Cobra was being called by the DHSC [the Department of Health and Social Care] for presentation purposes, that is to say to make a splash about the role of DHSC, perhaps its secretary of state [Matt Hancock], and that’s why you initially hesitated.
Sedwill replied: “That is a fair summary of my thinking.”
Updated
Sedwill says Johnson government was 'more like an opposition' coming into power because of Brexit process
Keith says he wants to ask about the efficacy of Boris Johnson’s administration.
Q: As a government coming into office, was it an experienced administration?
Sedwill says there were some very experienced ministers in it, like Michael Gove. Matt Hancock has been in cabinet for several years. There were others as well, he says.
But he says, overall, it was “more like an opposition party coming into power after a general election” because of the Brexit process.
Q: How focused was that administration on is own agenda?
Sedwill says that was its primary focus. The election was in December 2019, and at first the primary focus was on Brexit.
Updated
Sedwill suggests cabinet ministers have wider perspective, and more 'grounded' in what's happening, than No 10 advisers
Q: Do you agree that cabinet is more “grounded” than a cabal of advisers in No 10?
Yes, says Sedwill. He says ministers are constituency MPs. That means they are exposed to the views of the public in a way that advisers are not. He says he always encouraged ministers to remember that.
Q: And the perspective that cabinet could bring was of extra value?
Yes, says Sedwill.
Sedwill says he had to remind Boris Johnson of importance of involving cabinet ministers in key decisions
Q: Do you think cabinet governance was undermined during Covid?
Sedwill says the attacks on cabinet did undermine its authority. But the formal decisions were taken in cabinet, he says.
He says he ensured decisions were properly minuted and properly taken.
Q: But there was tension between No 10 and cabinet, wasn’t there?
Sedwill says he did need to remind Boris Johnson of involving cabinet colleagues in the formulation of decisions.
I did need to remind him of the importance of involving Cabinet colleagues not just in the formal decision but formulation of that decision.
It is normal for a PM to talk to his team before a decision gets taken, he says.
Q: Why did you have to speak to the PM about this?
Sedwill says Helen MacNamara covered this in her evidence last week. During Brexit, ministers would go into cabinet meetings having not had the chance to read papers days in advance. They would only be shown documents in a reading room. This system was in place in response to leaks.
During Covid that precise system was not in place. But he says the PM did go into cabinet with a firm position of his own, and that affected the candour of cabinet decisions.
Updated
Q: Is the cabinet the ultimate decision-making body in government?
Yes, says Sedwill.
But he says it is a matter of judgment what decisions get taken to cabinet.
Q: Were the Covid-O and Covid-S committees full cabinet committees?
Yes, says Sedwill.
These were the two committees dealing with Covid operations and Covid strategy.
He says, as cabinet committees, they could take decisions on behalf of the full cabinet.
Updated
Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, is questioning Sedwill.
Q: Were there concerns about you doing both jobs – national security adviser and cabinet secretary?
Sedwill says he delegated more responsibilities than he otherwise would have done. And he says this was never intended to be a permanent arrangement.
He also says he was only replicating responsibilities that the PM himself had.
He says there was an assumption that, when he moved on, the roles would be split again.
Q: Is it fair to say the arrangement was not wise?
Sedwill says the arrangement “made sense in the circumstances at the time”.
Updated
Former cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill gives evidence to Covid inquiry
Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary, has just started giving evidence to the Covid inquiry. There is a live feed here.
Yesterday the hearing was shown an exchange of messages between Sedwill and Simon Case, who succeeded him as cabinet secretary, in which Case said he had “never seen a bunch of people less well equipped to run the country” than Boris Johnson and his team.
Sedwill was originally national security adviser and he became cabinet secretary, combining the job with the security post, when Jeremy Heywood, his predecessor, fell ill. At the time, and afterwards, many people felt merging the two jobs like this was not ideal.
Last week the inquiry saw evidence showing that on Thursday 12 March, less than a week before Boris Johnson ordered people to stay at home, Sedwill was still pushing the “herd immunity” approach to Covid.
The inquiry has also seen evidence showing Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s chief adviser, being insulting and abusive about Sedwill in private. Last week Cummings was asked about messages he sent saying Sedwill was “out to lunch” and “hasn’t a scooby [clue] what’s going on”. In response, Cummings claimed he always had a good relationship with Sedwill.
Updated
The Labour MP Zarah Sultana has tabled an amendment to the king’s speech debate motion saying the government should “urgently press all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire, the immediate and unconditional release of hostages, an end to the total siege of Gaza to allow full access to medical supplies, food, fuel, electricity and water, and a guarantee that international humanitarian law is upheld”. It has been signed by 12 other Labour MPs, mostly from the left, and some MPs from other opposition parties.
As a backbench amendment, it is very unlikely to be put to a vote when the debate ends next week.
Updated
Former Tory chair Sayeeda Warsi says Starmer right to say Braverman unfit to be home secretary
Sayeeda Warsi, a former Conservative party chair, has said that Keir Starmer was right to criticise Suella Braverman, the home secretary, in his speech in the Commons yesterday. She has also accused Braverman of increasing the prospect of rightwing extremists trying to disrupt the pro-Palestinian demonstration planned for Saturday.
Warsi posted these messages on X.
“The job of the police is hard enough already without the Home Secretary using it as a platform for her own political ambitions”
We all need to say this
The Home Sec through her rhetoric & culture wars makes our country unsafe -she is dangerous & divisive and not fit for office
“The job of the police is hard enough already without the Home Secretary using it as a platform for her own political ambitions”
— Sayeeda Warsi (@SayeedaWarsi) November 8, 2023
We all need to say this
The Home Sec through her rhetoric & culture wars makes our country unsafe -she is dangerous & divisive and not fit for office https://t.co/y20Xtbp6EX
Updated
Labour says Gaza ceasefire would help Hamas after frontbencher resigns over Starmer’s stance
Good morning. It took a month, but Keir Starmer has now received the first resignation from a Labour frontbencher over his stance on the Israel-Hamas war. At council level several dozen councillors have already resigned, either because of the LBC interview Starmer gave shortly after the war started in which he appeared to back Israel’s decision to cut off food, water and power supplies to Gaza, and partly because Starmer is refusing to back calls for a ceasefire. Many members and supporters are also furious, particular in constituencies with large Muslim populations. Starmer has changed his tone a lot since the LBC interview, and taken time to defend his position at length. But Imran Hussain’s resignation is a moment of peril because it could encourage other frontbenchers who share his concerns to quit too. Hussain says a ceasefire is “essential to ending the bloodshed”.
Here is Aletha Adu’s story about the resignation.
This morning Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, was giving interviews, and this is what she said on the Today programme when asked what she would says to Hussain. She replied:
We all want to see more humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. We want to see humanitarian pauses. And of course, it’s important that Israel upholds international law. I do recognise the strength of feeling across our party on it …
The events that we saw on 7 October were sickening acts of utter barbarity and brutality. But every day on our screens we also see the suffering of Palestinian children and it is right that everything possible is done to alleviate that plight.
Asked what Labour calling for humanitarian pauses, but not for a ceasefire, she said:
[A ceasefire] would freeze the conflict in time. It risks allowing Hamas to regroup and to perpetuate further terrible atrocities that they’ve said that they want the opportunity to do. That humanitarian pause to allow for extra time for aid to get into Gaza is in line with what the US are calling for.
Labour HQ is saying the same thing. This is how a spokesperson responded to Hussain’s resignation.
Labour fully understands calls for a ceasefire. Everybody wants to see an end to the shocking images we are seeing in Gaza. We need to see all hostages released and aid getting to those most in need.
But a ceasefire now will only freeze this conflict and would leave hostages in Gaza and Hamas with the infrastructure and capability to carry out the sort of attack we saw on October 7.
International law must be followed at all times and innocent civilians must be protected. Labour is calling for humanitarian pauses in the fighting.
This is the best and most realistic way to address the humanitarian emergency in Gaza and is a position shared by our major allies.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9am: Lucy Frazer, the culture secretary, takes part in an LBC phone-in.
Morning: Rishi Sunak is visiting a school in Lincolnshire.
10am: Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
11.30am: Andrew Mitchell, the developmen minister, is due to give a statement to MPs about the Israel-Gaza war.
Around 12.30pm: Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, and Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, open the second day of debate on the king’s speech.
1.30pm: Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, speaks at an Institute for Government event.
2pm: Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, gives evidence to the Commons energy security and net zero committee.
2pm: Justin Tomlinson, the former minister for the disabled, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry.
2.30pm: Amanda Spielman, head of Ofsted, gives evidence to the Commons culture committee.
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.
Updated
