societal issues as sage was doing for the scientific issues? there is a strong case for having the technical economic advice remembering economic advisers often market sensitive. me transparently available to people and, where it is for experts to challenge it, there is a case to be made. my suspicion is a case to be made. my suspicion is this is one that the treasury are fairly unlikely to want to but that is for a large number of legitimate reasons. but, you know, what you say is correct, it would, however, the one bit of what you said i would just be a little bit more cautious of is the idea that the science advice would be trumped by the economic advice. my view is political leadership take both bits of advice and then they should balance them. in a sense that is theirjob, not mine. i balance them. in a sense that is theirjob, not mine.— balance them. in a sense that is theirjob, not mine. their “ob, not mine. i have refer to that theirjob, not mine. i have refer to that direct — theirjob, not mine. i have refer to that direct the, _ theirjob, not mine. i have refer to that direct the, that _ theirjob, not mine. i have refer to that direct the, that is _ theirjob, not mine. i have refer to that direct the, that is a _ theirjob, not mine. i have refer to that direct the, that is a political. that direct the, that is a political decision for ministers. modelling. some witnesses have suggested that there was an overreliance on epidemiological modelling within sage, particularly betweenjanuary and march. sage, particularly between january and march. ~ �* , ., ., ., and march. we're “ust going to leave the code inquiry — and march. we're just going to leave the code inquiry there _ and march. we're just going to leave the code inquiry there for _ and march. we're just going to leave the code inquiry there for a - and march. we're just going to leave the code inquiry there for a moment| the code inquiry there for a moment to bring you some breaking news. we brought you a story a little earlier about four missing teenagers have been missing since sunday morning. well, we have just been missing since sunday morning. well, we havejust been been missing since sunday morning. well, we have just been told been missing since sunday morning. well, we havejust been told by been missing since sunday morning. well, we have just been told by the police to have in fact located the vehicle that the boys were travelling in. it is believed they have gone camping in snowdonia. we do have the four boys names. they were last seen in a silver ford fiesta. mountain rescue teams and the coastguard helicopter had been searching the area and north wales police have appealed for any sightings to be reported butjust to reiterate, officers say that they have now located the vehicle. but we understand no sign of the boys at the moment. there is a live page on the moment. there is a live page on the bbc news website with any updates do head there if you want any latest developments. we are going to return to the covid inquiry and he is continuing to give his evidence. a strong preference for actual data over model data where thatis actual data over model data where that is available. the problem we had and models have many uses. the problem we had early in the pandemic, in the first three months, was we were dealing with very sparse data and data that had to be integrated from lots of different areas. where the actual data didn't tell you a terribly clear story. as the numbers sadly ticked up, and there are many more cases in the uk, then the actual data was relatively easy to interpret. it was much harder earlier on. models have a separate use which is testing out scenarios and saying if you do this what is the likely effect? it's always important and again modellers will also agree with this, it is a cliche of modelling that all models are wrong but some are useful and the point about these models was that they helped to explore and test some policy options. they were not predictions of the future and i think this is where some of the problems arose. these are not meant to be predictions. they were not presented as predictions but they were often interpreted as predictions.— were often interpreted as redictions. �* ., ., predictions. i'm going to come back to the public— predictions. i'm going to come back to the public perception _ predictions. i'm going to come back to the public perception of - predictions. i'm going to come back to the public perception of models l to the public perception of models in a moment but remaining focused on this issue of the extent to which modelling was required to understand the basic data which would inform your advice to government as to what the state of emergency was, how quickly the virus was emerging and in relation to the spread of the virus, its transmission. modelling wasn't required, was it? to inform you of the infection hospitalisation rates, how many people infected would be hospitalised? how many people would die of those who were infected, or the impact the nhs was likely to be. thosejudgments rested upon actual data or short—term scenario planning, just basic standard assessments on what was likely to happen. standard assessments on what was likely to happen-— standard assessments on what was likely to happen. when we had, from late march onwards, _ likely to happen. when we had, from late march onwards, unfortunately, l likely to happen. when we had, from j late march onwards, unfortunately, a lot of people with covid in the uk, a lot of people going to hospital and a lot dying, and a bit later than that we had very good day —— make data flows and we could see where things were going i agree with you that was much better to rest on those as the principal reasons to make decisions, presenting data to ministers and the general public. that was not the situation, though, we had injanuary, february and early march. remembering the numbers at that point were extremely small and, in fact, at that point were extremely small and, infact, we at that point were extremely small and, in fact, we were not picking up very large numbers of them and we look at the decision—making, it had to be based on extrapolation of the true numbers so, for example, early on, there was a very useful analysis done by professor ferguson saying that the numbers in china must be substantially greater than the numbers being reported based on his modelling about what happened if it had left china. i’m modelling about what happened if it had left china.— had left china. i'm “ust going to ut ou had left china. i'm “ust going to put you there. _ had left china. i'm “ust going to put you there. i _ had left china. i'm just going to put you there. i am _ had left china. i'm just going to put you there. i am so - had left china. i'm just going to put you there. i am so sorry. i had left china. i'm just going to i put you there. i am so sorry. that was not however modelling exercise. you look to the number of flights coming out of wuhan, worked out for the number of people in hospital how many people therefore were likely to be infected, and worked out the infection hospitalisation rate from that. it was not a modelling exercise. that. it was not a modelling exercise-— that. it was not a modelling exercise. a, , ~ ., a, exercise. that sounds like a model to me. exercise. that sounds like a model to me- let — exercise. that sounds like a model to me- let me _ exercise. that sounds like a model to me. let me ask— exercise. that sounds like a model to me. let me ask you _ exercise. that sounds like a model to me. let me ask you this. - exercise. that sounds like a model to me. let me ask you this. it - exercise. that sounds like a model to me. let me ask you this. it is i to me. let me ask you this. it is obvious from — to me. let me ask you this. it is obvious from the _ to me. let me ask you this. it is obvious from the 28th _ to me. let me ask you this. it is obvious from the 28th of - to me. let me ask you this. it is| obvious from the 28th of january obvious from the 28th of january sage meeting, for example, that spy and were asked to advise on the actions of the united could take to slow down the spread of the outbreak. why was it thought necessary to ask modellers to be the vanguard of that response? to give advice to sage about how in practice the government should respond? modelling could never be a substitute for basic epidemiological analysis of death rates, hospitalisation rates and impact on health services. i hospitalisation rates and impact on health services.— health services. i think you're robabl health services. i think you're probably using _ health services. i think you're probably using modelling - health services. i think you're probably using modelling in l health services. i think you're probably using modelling in a j health services. i think you're - probably using modelling in a much narrower sense than i would say a lot of things you've talked about, in my view, depend on models, so, for example, how you calculate a clinical fatality rate, for example, how you calculate a clinicalfatality rate, or for example, how you calculate a clinical fatality rate, or a population level fatality rate is a modelled number, particularly early on when numbers are changing very rapidly. so i think modelling had some quite small and discreet uses and these are laid out quite nicely in several of the witness statements you've already received so i'm not going to go into them in detail so i think quite a lot of the relatively simple data are still model derived. i think that you're talking about a scenario models which actually test out the point about this as they don't propose, they test various approaches and say how these, if you did this if you did that, what, in the view of the model with a big caveat i made that models are not predictions, which are the ones that would have big impacts and which would have big impacts and which would not? you can try to do that without a model but a model will give you a lot of information you otherwise would not have. mas give you a lot of information you otherwise would not have. was this the position — otherwise would not have. was this the position that _ otherwise would not have. was this the position that a _ otherwise would not have. was this the position that a great _ otherwise would not have. was this the position that a great deal - otherwise would not have. was this the position that a great deal of - the position that a great deal of time and energy and resource was spent in february on that sort of future modelling that is to say trying to model what the various contingent outcomes would be or steps that be taken by the government, what impact measures would have, but that... of necessity relatively less time was spent focused on the actuality of the scenario faced by sage on the government which was that there was emerging data from china and from the diamond princess episode and from the basic icl and london school of hygiene and tropical medicine reports telling you what the death rates and hospitalisation rates were likely to be. rates and hospitalisation rates were likel to be. ~ u, rates and hospitalisation rates were likely to be— likely to be. welcome i mean, firstl , likely to be. welcome i mean, firstly. a _ likely to be. welcome i mean, firstly. a lot— likely to be. welcome i mean, firstly, a lot of— likely to be. welcome i mean, firstly, a lot of those - likely to be. welcome i mean, firstly, a lot of those data - likely to be. welcome i mean, firstly, a lot of those data are| firstly, a lot of those data are coming from modelling groups, just to clarify on that point. it is also important to realise there are huge strands of scientific work in parallel with the modelling work. now, the modelling work tends to get a lot of promise in one of the reasons it has lodged itself in the public mind are some of the prominent modelling groups were led by people very good at explaining it in the media to be tended to hear a lot of more of that than they did from virologists or others but actually, alongside this was a very large research and analytical effort across multiple domains. and modelling only one of those. it is an important one. tom modelling only one of those. it is an important one.— modelling only one of those. it is an important one. two final points on modelling- _ an important one. two final points on modelling. firstly, _ an important one. two final points on modelling. firstly, can - an important one. two final points on modelling. firstly, can you - on modelling. firstly, can you return to the point you made earlier about the public appreciation of modelling? there is plain evidence before the inquiry that quite inappropriate degree of alarmism was apportioned to some of the scenario forecasting modelling done by icl and professor ferguson and also by the london school of hygiene and tropical medicine. in general terms, was that alarmism and criticism justified in any way at all? i thought sir patrick did an excellent job of laying out his discomfort and my discomfort at trying to explain models in very short form, press briefings because they have to come with large numbers of caveats. and what a never to the happened with models, unfortunately, what you cannot actually argue with the number of people going into hospital, the number of people sadly dying. you can argue with the model so they tended to become a way in which both sides of a polarised debate tended to have that debate with some people saying this is all made up, it is exaggerated, this is just modelling and the modelling is exaggerated and other groups saying the model show this is terrible and bayern to be doing more so the models tended to become the focus for the debates between people who had strong opposing views, because they were more debatable, actually. also because they were not fully understood and a large number of people debating them in public were doing so because they are the position they wanted to advance and they were going to use the model to advance that position almost whatever the model showed. and i think this demonstrates that trying to use modelling outputs in public discourse has to be done with care. it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done but it should be done with great care whereas using actual data is easier. everyone can it. you can test whether it is true or not but you can then interpret it and that is why, personally, ifar preferred, and if you see my presentations of data, i tried wherever possible over need use either existing data or data with very short term projections because i think that is much more straightforward to explain. in much more straightforward to exlain. , a, , explain. in truth, is that why when there was a _ explain. in truth, is that why when there was a change _ explain. in truth, is that why when there was a change of— explain. in truth, is that why when there was a change of strategy, i explain. in truth, is that why when there was a change of strategy, as we have heard and will debate in due course, what has been called the change of strategy occurred around about the 13th of march, what drove that change of strategy was actual data about where we were on the epidemiological... that data about where we were on the epidemiological. . ._ epidemiological... at this point were going _ epidemiological... at this point were going to _ epidemiological... at this point were going to say _ epidemiological... at this point were going to say goodbye i epidemiological... at this point were going to say goodbye to l epidemiological... at this point l were going to say goodbye to our viewers on bbc two. you can carry on watching the covid inquiry if you check on the qr code. the problem we had was both where we thought we were on time and where we thought we were on time and where we thought we were in terms of the force of transmission and therefore the number of measures you need to actually get on top of things change quite significantly once actual data started to flow that was more reliable and that is kind of inevitable. data trumps models every time. that is everybody. and any model is only as strong as the date on which it is based.— model is only as strong as the date on which it is based. coming back to the criticisms _ on which it is based. coming back to the criticisms that _ on which it is based. coming back to the criticisms that were _ on which it is based. coming back to the criticisms that were made i on which it is based. coming back to the criticisms that were made in i on which it is based. coming back to the criticisms that were made in the | the criticisms that were made in the public sphere in relation to models, models numbers of deaths in essence, that may occur in the event that, for example, step is not taken or they may model a variety of mitigation that may or may not be put into place because of because of there's mitigations are put into place and the government does take steps then the number of deaths estimated will not come to pass, all right. finally, some evidence has been given to the inquiry that the modelling that was relied upon by sage failed to give sufficient weight to spontaneous changes in behaviour on the part of the population as opposed to weighing up the likely consequences of government ordained legally backed change in behaviour. what do you say to that? do you think that the issue of voluntary or spontaneous changes in behaviour was correctly understood and put in its place in the correct a sense, in the model, and i'm going to cause deep into my modelling colleagues in the way i'm going to describe this but i'm going to do it in a sense for a general audience. the model can say, for example, what would happen if you reduced interactions between households by 75% or more. that reduced interactions between households by 7596 or more. that is a straightforward _ households by 7596 or more. that is a straightforward thing, _ households by 7596 or more. that is a straightforward thing, in _ households by 7596 or more. that is a straightforward thing, in fact, - households by 7596 or more. that is a straightforward thing, in fact, that i straightforward thing, in fact, that some of the models ask that question. you can then make an assumption, which you can vary, to how far you would get by simply saying please, everybody, stay at home, and how far you can get by adding on to that and the government will insist. there is a perfectly possible to model. that is not actually a particularly difficult to do. we are doing is saying what proportions do i assign to these and it could be you got 100% adherence without any government action or it could be there is quite a big difference between the government insisting on people doing it voluntarily. think one of the problems of course we had in march, in particular, but also at other points and other pandemics is there was no way of being confident, really about what the relative contributions of those would be and by the time you would be confident, you would be several doubling times further along the path. so there wouldn't be time, and a sense, to the back and say, well, that is fine, then, we probably don't need to take more radical steps. would it be helpfulfor mejust to take more radical steps. would it be helpful for me just a to take more radical steps. would it be helpfulfor mejust a bit to take more radical steps. would it be helpful for me just a bit of a better background to this? i don't think so but— better background to this? i don't think so but thank _ better background to this? i don't think so but thank professor. it i think so but thank professor. it would appear, do hereby summarise your position fairly, the question of the weights to be given to voluntary as opposed to compulsory changes in behaviour is extremely hard to estimate.— changes in behaviour is extremely hard to estimate.- and i changes in behaviour is extremely hard to estimate.- and anl hard to estimate. create. and an attem -t hard to estimate. create. and an attempt was _ hard to estimate. create. and an attempt was made _ hard to estimate. create. and an attempt was made repeatedly i hard to estimate. create. and an attempt was made repeatedly to | attempt was made repeatedly to estimate what weight to be given to that particular issue but we will never know. aha, that particular issue but we will never know-— that particular issue but we will never know. �* , a a, , never know. a big impact as he went and we have — never know. a big impact as he went and we have probably _ never know. a big impact as he went and we have probably get _ never know. a big impact as he went and we have probably get different i and we have probably get different answers between different waves as well. �* a, a, a, a , well. and that rather reinforces the oint well. and that rather reinforces the point made — well. and that rather reinforces the point made earlier, _ well. and that rather reinforces the point made earlier, doesn't - well. and that rather reinforces the point made earlier, doesn't it, i point made earlier, doesn't it, about the care that needs to be applied in placing weight upon modelling outcomes, particularly of that more sophisticated type? yes. you make all— that more sophisticated type? yes. you make all right. _ that more sophisticated type? yes. you make all right. you _ that more sophisticated type? yes. you make all right. you refer in your statement to the fact that, disgracefully, abuse was directed from the public and some sections of the press and social media against yourself and the government was made chief scientific adviser and members of sage. �* �* ., ., ., ., ,~ of sage. and i'm not going to ask ou for of sage. and i'm not going to ask you for your _ of sage. and i'm not going to ask you for your reaction _ of sage. and i'm not going to ask you for your reaction to _ of sage. and i'm not going to ask you for your reaction to that. it i of sage. and i'm not going to ask you for your reaction to that. it is| you for your reaction to that. it is absolutely self—evident that that was a disgraceful thing to occur. you must of thought, you must have wondered, though, during the course of this pandemic, to what extent yourself and your fellow scientists on sage were made, by virtue of your herculean contribution, belaying yourself open to future legal liability. yourself open to future legal liabili . , ., ~ liability. yes, and i think i was not, in liability. yes, and i think i was not. in my _ liability. yes, and i think i was not. in my own _ liability. yes, and i think i was not, in my own position i liability. yes, and i think i was not, in my own position of- liability. yes, and i think i was. not, in my own position of being a government employee, i was much less concerned but i have always been worried and i have been for some time, that it is ambiguous, at best, where scientists who are either seconded into something or not employed by government at all but are giving theirtime, employed by government at all but are giving their time, in various forms, formal or informal, to what extent are they automatically covered by some form of indemnity against frivolous or indeed actual civil claims? and i think that is a worry and i think it is one which should be solvable, in my view. shunt! should be solvable, in my view. and i wanted to — should be solvable, in my view. situc i wanted to turn to should be solvable, in my view. fific i wanted to turn to that, please, should be solvable, in my view. el"i:c i wanted to turn to that, please, at the into which, of course, you contributed your, to which you contributed your, to which you contributed your, to which you contributed your advice on the advice of sage. it is obvious that those momentous decisions to impose knockdowns, stay at home order is backed by the force law and decisions in relation to circuit breakers and tears and rules of whatever they may have amounted to, were decisions for government. there are not decisions for temperament with the cmo of the gca. yes. does it follow that _ with the cmo of the gca. yes. does it follow that they are all, ultimately, political decisions? i think they are all very clearly political decisions because they are very profound implications for society and i think they are clearly ones that only an elected politician within a democratic system, at least, can reasonably finally made. we can give advice of a technical nature as to what would happen in that situation of this one but ultimately these are political decisions. yet the method is that why, do you think, these matters have why this whole debate has become so politicised and why so many commentators have taken such entrenched positions?— entrenched positions? well, i think, in a sense they _ entrenched positions? well, i think, in a sense they are _ entrenched positions? well, i think, in a sense they are political- entrenched positions? well, i think, in a sense they are political and i entrenched positions? well, i think, in a sense they are political and it i in a sense they are political and it is open to political debate. i think, within that, there is a bit where i completely thought that the debate was not illegitimate but healthy and there was a bed which i thought was less healthy. would it be helpful for me... thought was less healthy. would it be helpfulfor me... healthy bit thought was less healthy. would it be helpful for me... healthy bit of the debate was i think it was quite right that, in, for example, the balance between public health intervention and, essentially, for the sake of argument, freedom to do what people want, as had openly and within a democracy. i think that is quite right. where i it was not legitimate was for people, essentially, to change the facts to fit the political agenda that they came with and there is no doubt that there were examples of that. but people essentially ignored facts, twisted facts, in my opinion, that were fact. they were not model outputs are anything, never fact of life. because they were inconvenient to the political position they took. that doesn't strike me as healthy and the environment of a very major crisis. the debate seems to be something quite rightly, that should happen and ideally happen in the public domain and in parliament. you make there is a fundamental point to make, isn't there? about the role of sage and the cmo in the gca. firstly, you can only advise in the public health sphere. create. iaudiell public health sphere. create. well ou could public health sphere. create. well you could advise, _ public health sphere. create. well you could advise, of— public health sphere. create. -ii you could advise, of course, on the indirect and direct consequences of whatever decision the government might make, in terms of the effect on mortality and how many people would die, it was exclusively a matter for government to weigh up the mortality issue, the number of deaths, to weigh up the economic and societal harmfulness, resulting from, for example, lockdown. there was never anything that sage are you or sir patrick could advise on directly? or sir patrick could advise on directl ? ., . ., ., ., directly? correct. can i add a sliuht directly? correct. can i add a slight addition. _ directly? correct. can i add a slight addition. i— directly? correct. can i add a slight addition. i completely | directly? correct. can i add a i slight addition. i completely agree with the point... which is going to move away from the covid inquiry to bring you some breaking news now. we just been told that the tv series top gear has been rested for the foreseeable future. the motoring show has been going since 1977. it was paused following a crash during filming in december last year. it left the co—presenter with some serious injuries. we know that the production of the show after it was halted, there was an investigation into what happened to freddie flintoff. he was taken to hospital after he was injured in an accident at the aerodrome in surrey and following that crash, the bbc announced it would pause production of the show which is co—presented by paddy mcguinness and chris harris. they said it felt appropriate, adding that there would be a health and safety review while the first time we saw freddie flintoff, looking at pictures of him there, since that crash last december, was in september. as you can see there. and it was reported that he had life changing injuries. and it was reported that he had made a settlement with the bbc, reached a settlement with the bbc, reached a settlement with the bbc, reached a settlement with the bbc after he was hurt in the accident and missed out on two years of earnings in one newspaper reported that that deal, that settlement was worth £9 million. the payout, specifically not funded by the tv licence fee, the bbc studios is the commercial arm of the forecast and they pay for this programme. then tough's legal team said the former cricketer was still recovering from life altering significant injuries. following that crash on the 13th of december 2022. freddie flintoff received medical care at the scene before being taken to hospitalfor care at the scene before being taken to hospital for further treatment and we know that that show which has been running since 1977, top gear has now been rested or some would say axed by the bbc. we will get more and that a little later. let's go back to the covid inquiry now. which did lead, directly of course, to the government imposing the third lockdown? yes to the government imposing the third lockdown? . . ~ to the government imposing the third lockdown? , , ,, ., lockdown? yes but i think there are two situations _ lockdown? yes but i think there are two situations on _ lockdown? yes but i think there are two situations on this. _ lockdown? yes but i think there are two situations on this. the - lockdown? yes but i think there are two situations on this. the first i two situations on this. the first one is, the uk cmo is advised a move up one is, the uk cmo is advised a move up to alert level five, as it was then turned and the details, knowing that was something which would be politically important but this wasn't as telling ministers in any of the four nations what to do. it was making clear our view that if they did nothing the outcome would be very bad. from a public health point of view. ultimately, the decision is still that for ministers and the decision as to whether to accept our advice on the alert level was in fact for ministers but my view was they were pretty unlikely to refuse our request to move. the other situation, theyjust to refuse our request to move. the other situation, they just want to be really clear on this one, it is also legitimate, in my view, they did this from time to time, for me to give advice direct to the public which they can choose to take on art. and, for example, the winter of 2021, i did, for example, advise, which was not government policy, the people were extremely careful in the period around christmas. that wasn't, in my view, political advice that that was public health advice and they could take it or not. it wasn't the government speak and put up wasn't the government speak and put up a large number did take that advice a public health present to do. my colleagues around the country would give similar advice on their regional areas, the cmo is in the otherfour nations. regional areas, the cmo is in the other four nations. that is intrinsic to the job of cmo public health advisor but that is very different to things that involve government or the force of law or the use of taxes. in government or the force of law or the use of taxes.— government or the force of law or the use of taxes. in order to shoot as many hairs _ the use of taxes. in order to shoot as many hairs as _ the use of taxes. in order to shoot as many hairs as possible, - the use of taxes. in order to shoot as many hairs as possible, does i the use of taxes. in order to shoot as many hairs as possible, does it| as many hairs as possible, does it also follow that ministers were absolutely clear that, as the democratically elected representatives it was exclusively for them to make the decisions are not for you are sage or any other part of the government machine which wasn't an elected representative? i that if you have them, in the early stages, needed some help to see that that was there. there was no option but for them to make the decision. but that wasn't because they were trying to shirk their responsibilities. i think they sell it as a technocratic exercise and i saw it as a political exercise, to the end of the day, that the technocratic bed was giving technical advice, the political situation follows on from that but i think once people had internalise that and there was no pushback on it, then i think ministers but clear that they ultimately held the responsibility to balance the various issues. in responsibility to balance the various issues.— responsibility to balance the various issues. in truth, were there ever any good _ various issues. in truth, were there ever any good or — various issues. in truth, were there ever any good or easy _ various issues. in truth, were there ever any good or easy outcomes? l various issues. in truth, were there i ever any good or easy outcomes? said there were two things i said right from the beginning and i still don't think there's any reason to doubt them foot of the first of which is that there were no good options. all the options were very bad. some are a bit worse and some were very, very bad. in the second is this to go on for a long time so if you took an option you had to be prepared to seep through for many months to years rather than just seeing this as a temporary situation. and i think again, this too, for some people to internalise that this was not going to be in any way easy and it also was going to be long and it was also going to involve significant loss of life almost irrespective, unfortunately, whatever decision was taken but were some decisions that lead to substantially worse outcomes from a public health point of view. and substantially worse outcomes from a public health point of view.— public health point of view. and is it because. _ public health point of view. and is it because, ultimately, _ public health point of view. and is it because, ultimately, these i it because, ultimately, these momentous decisions could only be for ministers that a mantra that they were following science was in your opinion inaccurate?— your opinion inaccurate? yeah, i mean, your opinion inaccurate? yeah, i mean. both _ your opinion inaccurate? yeah, i mean, both sir— your opinion inaccurate? yeah, i mean, both sir patrick _ your opinion inaccurate? yeah, i mean, both sir patrick and i, i your opinion inaccurate? yeah, i i mean, both sir patrick and i, when it initially happened, remembering that ourjob is to get science into government, that this is a good thing, government is recognising that science is important, but very soon we realised it was a noose around our necks and did not have a government either because it blurred the distinction between the very firm, clear demarcation that must and did occur, did exist, between technical advice and political decision, for which people are then answerable at the ballot box and in parliament. in a did you have a judge that scientific advice, either from a sabbaticalfrom judge that scientific advice, either from a sabbatical from sage, judge that scientific advice, either from a sabbaticalfrom sage, was being ignored that, for example, you are excluded from meetings where you would have expected to be 0n the second, that is a different judgment, different politicians might have come to a different balance. where there are meetings where i thought that it was convenient that one or two people where they are of patrick and i was not there, yes, but that is political process, ultimately ministers were in position they could have insisted we were there, and they did not always. neither would i have felt it was appropriate for me to insist there was an economic advisor they are, or someone who had understood diplomacy. this has to be a decision fundamentally for ministers, who do they want to take their advice from has to be for them at the end of the day. where there ever times when you assessed — where there ever times when you assessed that there was a degree of cherry— assessed that there was a degree of cherry picking of the science has been _ cherry picking of the science has been proffered by sage and yourself? that we _ been proffered by sage and yourself? that we were cherry picking or other people? that we were cherry picking or other --eole? , ., _ that we were cherry picking or other neale? , ., ,, ., that we were cherry picking or other n-eole? , ., ,, ., , people? obviously, other people cherry picking — people? obviously, other people cherry picking advice _ people? obviously, other people cherry picking advice you - people? obviously, other people cherry picking advice you were i cherry picking advice you were giving — cherry picking advice you were caivin. . cherry picking advice you were caivin. , ., ., , cherry picking advice you were giving. yes, no doubt about that. that was inevitable. _ giving. yes, no doubt about that. that was inevitable. i _ giving. yes, no doubt about that. that was inevitable. i want i giving. yes, no doubt about that. that was inevitable. i want to i giving. yes, no doubt about that. that was inevitable. i want to be | that was inevitable. i want to be clear