This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/06/boris-johnson-at-the-covid-inquiry-key-takeaways

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Boris Johnson at the Covid inquiry: key takeaways Boris Johnson at the Covid inquiry: key takeaways
(about 4 hours later)
Ex-PM is scheduled to be questioned for two days: here are the main points from his first session at the inquiryEx-PM is scheduled to be questioned for two days: here are the main points from his first session at the inquiry
Boris Johnson has been giving evidence at the UK’s public inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic, where he was questioned on the decisions he made as prime minister during that time. The UK’s former prime minister Boris Johnson has issued a series of apologies about mistakes made during the pandemic.
The appearance of Johnson, who was prime minister for three years between 2019 and 2022, has been the most eagerly awaited moment so far in an inquiry overseen by a former judge. But, on the first of his two days of evidence to the Covid inquiry, he also defended the bulk of his decision-making.
It has implications both for Johnson’s legacy and, potentially, for the current prime minister, Rishi Sunak, who served under him as Britain’s finance minister, or chancellor of the exchequer, during the pandemic. Sunak is due to give evidence to the inquiry later this month. Here are some of the key takeaways from day one of his evidence:
Johnson resigned in disgrace in September 2022 after a series of scandals including reports that he and other officials had been present at alcohol-fuelled gatherings during 2020 and 2021 at Downing Street, the official residences and offices of Britain’s prime minister. Johnson began his appearance by issuing an apology for “the pain and the loss and the suffering”
Here are some of the key takeaways from the first day of two days of evidence: As Johnson was attempting to deliver his prepared apology, four people staged a protest inside the inquiry room. One held a sign saying: “The dead can’t hear your apologies.” They were led away.
Johnson began his appearance by issuing an apology, as expected, for what he describe as the “pain and the loss and the suffering” during the pandemic. Johnson said: “Can I just say how glad I am to be at this inquiry and how sorry I am for the pain and the loss and the suffering of the Covid victims.”
However, even as Johnson was attempting to deliver the words, four people who staged a protest inside the inquiry and were removed said they “didn’t want his apology”. About 5,000 WhatsApp messages on Johnson’s phone from 30 January 2020 to June 2020 were unavailable to the inquiry
“The dead can’t hear your apologies,” read signs held up by those who were removed. A barrister acting for the inquiry, Hugo Keith KC, said a technical report provided by Johnson’s solicitors suggested there may have been a factory reset at the end of January 2020 followed by an attempt to reinstate the contents in June 2020, but Johnson denied knowledge of that.
“Can I just say how glad I am to be at this inquiry and how sorry I am for the pain and the loss and the suffering of the Covid victims,” Johnson had said, in remarks that he had been expected make.
About 5,000 WhatsApp messages on Boris Johnson’s phone from 30 January 2020 to June 2020 were unavailable to the inquiry, it emerged.
The disappearance of the messages, which Johnson has previously denied deleting, has been a long-running controversy.
A barrister acting for the inquiry, Hugo Keith KC [King’s Counsel], said a technical report provided by the former prime minister’s solicitors suggested there may have been a factory reset at the end of January 2020 followed by an attempt to reinstate the contents in June 2020, but Johnson denied knowledge of that.
“I don’t remember any such thing,” he said.“I don’t remember any such thing,” he said.
Johnson said he took responsibility for all decisions made but the first mistake he admitted to concerned the “mixed messages” from the UK government and the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Johnson defended the “disputatious culture” in No 10
“We were relying so much on messaging to help contain the virus and we needed the public to understand the message in as straightforward a way as possible, and they really did, by and large,” he said, but sometimes there would be one message from his own office “a slightly different one from Scotland or wherever”. A toxic culture of backstabbing and misogyny has already been laid bare at the Covid public inquiry. A key figure has been Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s former and now-estranged chief adviser, who was accused in October of “aggressive, foul-mouthed and misogynistic” abuse toward others working in government.
Asked about allegations by former advisers and ministers who claimed that there was a “toxic culture” at No 10 when he was prime minister, Johnson likened it to previous governments of Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher. Johnson avoided mentioning Cummings by name. He said: “I knew that some people were difficult. I didn’t know how difficult they were clearly.
A toxic culture of backstabbing and misogyny has already been laid bare at the Covid public inquiry. A key figure has been Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s former and now-estranged chief adviser, who was accused in October of “aggressive, foul-mouthed and misogynistic” abuse towards others working in government. “But I thought it was better on the whole for the country to have a disputatious culture in No 10 than one that was quietly acquiescent to whatever I or the scientists said.”
Johnson said he would make a distinction between the language used and the decision-making. The Blair and Thatcher governments also had “challenging and competing characters whose views about each other might not be fit to print” but they got “an awful lot done”. Johnson defended his decision not to sack Matt Hancock as health secretary
Johnson defended Matt Hancock, who was Britain’s health secretary for much of the pandemic and who became a lightning rod for criticism by others in government, despite internal calls to sack him. The inquiry has heard that Hancock became a lightning rod for criticism and that Johnson was urged to sack him by Cummings and the then-cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill.
Asked about WhatsApp messages from Cummings to dismiss Hancock, Johnson said: “If you’re a prime minister, you are constantly being lobbied by somebody to sack somebody else. It is just what I’m afraid happens. Everybody’s constantly militating against some other individual for some reason. It is perfectly true that this adviser in particular had a low opinion of the health secretary. I thought he was wrong. I stuck by the health secretary. I thought the health secretary worked very hard and whatever he may have had [in] defects, I thought that he was doing his best in very difficult circumstances and I thought he was a good communicator.” Johnson said: “If you’re a prime minister, you are constantly being lobbied by somebody to sack somebody else. It is perfectly true that this adviser in particular had a low opinion of the health secretary.
Covid decision-making was too male-dominated, Johnson admitted. “I thought he was wrong. I thought the health secretary worked very hard and whatever he may have had [in] defects, I thought that he was doing his best in very difficult circumstances and I thought he was a good communicator.”
Asked about claims from Cummings that Johnson wanted to keep Hancock as a “sacrifice for the inquiry”, he said: “I don’t remember that at all. And it’s nonsense.”
Covid decision-making was too male-dominated, Johnson admitted
“The gender balance of my team should have been better,” Johnson told the inquiry. The inquiry previously heard from Helen MacNamara, a senior civil servant who held the role of the deputy cabinet secretary, that there was “institutional bias against women” in Covid decision-making.“The gender balance of my team should have been better,” Johnson told the inquiry. The inquiry previously heard from Helen MacNamara, a senior civil servant who held the role of the deputy cabinet secretary, that there was “institutional bias against women” in Covid decision-making.
Johnson, who was the mayor of London between 2008 and 2019, appeared to accept this. He said: “When I was running London, it was 50/50, and it was a very harmonious team. I think sometimes during the pandemic too many meetings were too male-dominated.” Johnson said: “I think sometimes during the pandemic too many meetings were too male-dominated.”
The experience of previous crises around other diseases meant there was “not a sufficiently loud klaxon” within the UK government, Johnson claimed. Johnson apologised for failing to call out misogynistic attacks on a civil servant
Johnson was speaking after he was questioned over what he was told about the emergence of Covid-19 in China, telling the inquiry he had not been aware of an early estimation by British officials that 800,000 people could die in the UK. The inquiry previously heard that Cummings urged Johnson to sack MacNamara and complained to him of “dodging stilettos from that cunt”. Asked why he did not put a stop to such language, Johnson said: “I’ve rung Helen MacNamara to apologise to her for not having called it out.”
He said he had not seen that figure and had seen a different one towards the end of February, “about which time our alarm was well and truly raised”, he added. Johnson repeatedly disparaged those suffering from long Covid
Johnson argued that those in the UK government and their advisers were unable to comprehend “the implications of what we were actually looking at” and that they may have acted differently if they had “stopped to think about the mathematical implications”. The inquiry heard that Johnson scribbled “disparaging remarks” about long Covid, including describing it as “bollocks”. In February 2021 he suggested it was similar to soldiers falsely claiming they were suffering from Gulf War syndrome.
The former prime minister maintained that he “didn’t blame anyone”, but said the experience of previous crises, such as around the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars), meant the alarm was not sounded loud enough. Keith reminded him that evidential documents showed he had been urging against “an overreaction”. Johnson apologised for the remarks, saying they were not intended for publication.
Johnson admitted ‘vastly underestimating the risks’ in early stages of the pandemic. He said: “I’m sure that they have caused hurt and offence to a huge numbers of people who, who do indeed suffer from that syndrome and I regret very much using that language. I was trying to get my officials to explain to me exactly what the syndrome was.”
The former prime minister said both he and Whitehall more generally failed to understand the seriousness of the pandemic in late January and February 2020. Johnson admitted ‘vastly underestimating the risks’ in the early stages of the pandemic
Asked why information on 29 January about the virus spreading outside China did not become a “lightbulb moment”, Johnson said: “I don’t think that we were able to comprehend the implications of what we were actually looking at. The problem was that I don’t think we attached enough credence to those forecasts and because of the experience that we’d had with other zoonotic diseases, I think collectively in Whitehall, there was not a sufficiently loud enough klaxon.” The former PM said both he and Whitehall more generally failed to understand the seriousness of the pandemic in late January and February 2020.
He added: “It’s clear that we vastly underestimated the risks in those early weeks. If we properly understood how fast Covid was spreading and the fact that it was spreading asymptomatically there are many things we would have done differently … we were operating on a fallacious inductive logic about previous reasonable worst case scenarios.” Asked why information on 29 January about the virus spreading outside China did not become a “lightbulb moment”, Johnson said: “I don’t think that we were able to comprehend the implications of what we were actually looking at.
Johnson questioned scientists on closing borders in February 2020. “The problem was that I don’t think we attached enough credence to those forecasts and, because of the experience that we’d had with other zoonotic diseases [infections transmitted between species], I think collectively in Whitehall there was not a sufficiently loud enough klaxon.”
Johnson admitted he was worried about potential public pressure to close borders as the virus began to spread in February 2020. Previously Cummings had told the inquiry that at this stage Johnson had asked: “Aren’t people going to think we’re mad for not closing the borders?” On Wednesday, the former prime minister conceded: “I may have said something like that.” He added: “It’s clear that we vastly underestimated the risks in those early weeks. If we properly understood how fast Covid was spreading and the fact that it was spreading asymptomatically, there are many things we would have done differently … we were operating on a fallacious inductive logic about previous reasonable worst-case scenarios.”
He continued: “I thought it was a point worth picking up with the scientists. I wanted to understand the reason why border controls didn’t work. Johnson insisted he was working during the February half-term school break of 2020, the focus of controversy over an alleged lack of engagement
“When it came to borders, there was an overwhelming scientific consensus as far as I understood it, that trying to interrupt the virus with tougher border controls, bought you really very little, or you might delay by a matter of days or perhaps weeks, but you would not stop the virus from entering the UK. I think a lot of people in the country found it very hard to understand.” The inquiry previously heard that from 14 February to 24 February 2020, Johnson was on a break in Chevening House, a country residence used by Britain’s prime ministers, and was not updated by his staff about Covid and had no briefings on two Cobra meetings that took place during this period.
Johnson insisted he was working during the February half-term school break of 2020, the focus of controversy over an alleged lack of engagement. But Johnson insisted this was not accurate. “There wasn’t a long holiday that I took … I was working throughout the period and the tempo did increase.”
The inquiry previously heard that from 14 February and 24 February 2020, Johnson was on break in Chevening House, a country residence used by Britain’s prime ministers, and was not updated by his staff about Covid and had no briefings on two Cobra meetings that took place in this period. But Johnson insisted this was not accurate. “There wasn’t a long holiday that I took … I was working throughout the period and the the tempo did increase.”
He said he rang both the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, in part to discuss the origins of Covid “and to compare notes on what was happening”, and the then US president, Donald Trump, to discuss the same thing.He said he rang both the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, in part to discuss the origins of Covid “and to compare notes on what was happening”, and the then US president, Donald Trump, to discuss the same thing.
Johnson said that in a February 28 meeting the worst-case scenario (WCS) figures were presented and were a “horrifying figure and I couldn’t believe it”. Johnson said that in a 28 February meeting the worst-case scenario (WCS) figures were presented and were a “horrifying figure and I couldn’t believe it”.
“I thought, ‘Well, we have plenty of bad flu pandemics in the UK and if it’s milder than that then it won’t be an exceptional thing at all, so why am I also been told that the WCS is 520,000?”’ “I thought: ‘Well, we have plenty of bad flu pandemics in the UK and if it’s milder than that then it won’t be an exceptional thing at all, so why am I also being told that the WCS is 520,000?’”
The inquiry chair rebuked Johnson for leaks of his witness statement. The inquiry chair rebuked Johnson for leaks of his witness statement
Before Johnson’s evidence began, the chair of the inquiry, Lady Hallett, complained about media briefings about what he would tell the inquiry. Before Johnson’s evidence began, the chair of the inquiry, Heather Hallett, complained about media briefings about what he would tell the inquiry.
She said: “I’d like to express my concern about reports in the press over the last few days of the contents of Mr Johnson’s witness statement to the inquiry and what his evidence will be. Lady Hallett said: “I’d like to express my concern about reports in the press over the last few days of the contents of Mr Johnson’s witness statement to the inquiry and what his evidence will be.
“Until a witness is called and appears at a hearing, or the inquiry publishes the witness’s statement, it’s meant to be confidential between the witness, the inquiry and the core participants … Failing to respect confidentiality undermines the inquiry’s ability to do its job fairly, effectively and independently.” “Until a witness is called and appears at a hearing, or the inquiry publishes the witness’s statement, it’s meant to be confidential between the witness, the inquiry and the core participants … failing to respect confidentiality undermines the inquiry’s ability to do its job fairly, effectively and independently.”
Johnson’s remarks about people dying anyway showed “cruelty of choice’
A March 2020 internal government note showed that Johnson questioned why damage was being inflicted on the economy “for people who will die anyway”. Asked about the note, Johnson said it was an indication of “the cruelty of choice” at the time.
He was also asked what he meant in a handwritten note that said: “We’re killing the patient to tackle the tumour.”
Johnson said “if I did say something like that” he was referring to the need to do things that were damaging in other ways in order to “stamp down” the virus.
Johnson also confirmed that the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak, warned him about risk to the UK’s bond market and the ability to raise debt. Previous evidence has suggested that Sunak was among those in government who had been more reluctant than others to countenance a national lockdown.
Johnson “almost certainly” discussed Covid with the Russian media mogul Evgeny Lebedev just days before lockdown
Previous evidence has raised questions about the closeness between Johnson and Lebedev, who was controversially given a life peerage in 2020.
Records read out showed that Johnson met with the newspaper proprietor and also phoned him at the height of what counsel for the inquiry described as a 10-day “crisis” about a change of strategy in the run-up to the first lockdown.
Asked about this, he said that Lebedev, who owned London’s Evening Standard newspaper, “doubtless wanted to know what was happening in London” and Johnson said he wanted to inform and support him.