what he said yesterday, lets go through a little bit of fry his evidence is so important. matt hancock was in charge of the government health department at the time the pandemic began. he was an extremely powerful figure but also controversial, many will remember at times. he was tasked with overseeing restrictions such as things like lockdown and social distancing. let's have a listen to matt hancock speaking yesterday. mrcummings, sir patrick mr cummings, sir patrick vallance in his diaries, _ mr cummings, sir patrick vallance in his diaries, helen mcnamara had made reference _ his diaries, helen mcnamara had made reference to _ his diaries, helen mcnamara had made reference to you lying, to you getting — reference to you lying, to you getting overexcited and just saying staff, _ getting overexcited and just saying staff, that you say things which are people _ staff, that you say things which are people because they knew evidence base was _ people because they knew evidence base was not there. and out of fairness — base was not there. and out of fairness to— base was not there. and out of fairness to you, and because this is a vital— fairness to you, and because this is a vital issue — fairness to you, and because this is a vital issue that goes to how well the system of government was operating, yet being as you describe in your— operating, yet being as you describe in your blog, in the hotseat, how could _ in your blog, in the hotseat, how could to — in your blog, in the hotseat, how could to a — in your blog, in the hotseat, how could to a significant extent, important government advisors and officials _ important government advisors and officials have concluded that the secretary of state for health in the more _ secretary of state for health in the more of _ secretary of state for health in the more of this public health crisis was a _ more of this public health crisis was a liar? _ more of this public health crisis was a liar?— more of this public health crisis was a liar? well, i was not. you will note — was a liar? well, i was not. you will note there _ was a liar? well, i was not. you will note there is _ was a liar? well, i was not. you will note there is no _ was a liar? well, i was not. you will note there is no evidence i was a liar? well, i was not. you i will note there is no evidence from anybody who i worked within the department or the system who supported those false allegations. and indeed where there have been specifics attached to any of those allegations i have gone through them and i'll be happy to answer questions on any of them. and in a couple of occasions that were general sweeping allegations which had no evidence whatsoever. in one case the witness that i have not got this in black and white, of course not because it was not true and in another case, the witness said the accountability in government did not pick this up, they did not because the allegation was not true. what it was as there was a great deal of hard work on our site and a toxic culture we had to work with which seemed to want to find people to blame rather than spend all of their effort solving the problems and bets, maybe, as i've said before, i drove the system hard. sometimes the people i was trying to put into action did not think the action was necessary. figs action did not think the action was necessa . ~ , , ., , , necessary. as promised the inquiry has not started _ necessary. as promised the inquiry has not started so _ necessary. as promised the inquiry has not started so let's _ necessary. as promised the inquiry has not started so let's cross - necessary. as promised the inquiry has not started so let's cross overl has not started so let's cross over it like to central london and listen in. 48399 is a whatsapp group, on page 35 the 17th of september. thank you. at 5:25pm, to avoid national lockdown, we need to avoid things going on the wrong direction and further down the page at 46 seconds passed and come up heard an alarming gold meeting, a sharp rises in the north—east and merseyside, we need to get the tears are sorted and local action in place. the tears, may be present that is a reference to what you said yesterday about whether the proposal of tiering was proposed in september, you are endeavouring that the system needs to be sorted?— endeavouring that the system needs to be sorted? yes. page 38, the 8th of october, don't we have? the top of the page. we need to make the argument in every forum there is a problem, we want to avoid fault lockdown, and our call to action and on the 9th of october in the communication with simon case, 129514... you are the owner of the cell phone although your name is not there. just send the latest proposal, it's a white flag we cannotjust proposal, it's a white flag we cannot just give proposal, it's a white flag we cannotjust give up fighting the virus, we have to stop it regionally now or we will be in full national lockdown in a fortnight. could you help us. it's not entirely clear from the chronology what the latest proposal was you were referring to that you describe as a white flag, can you recall? i that you describe as a white flag, can you recall?— can you recall? i cannot particularly _ can you recall? i cannot particularly recall, - can you recall? i cannot| particularly recall, there can you recall? i cannot - particularly recall, there were a series of proposals over that time in september, we introduced a rent of six, there was a debate about whether it should be a run of eight or sex, whether it should be a run of eight orsex, i'm gladly whether it should be a run of eight or sex, i'm gladly introduced it as one of six but it did not go far enough, the i first suggested in early september and at was a great on the 18th of september for the implementation on the 2nd of october. —— rule of six. it was not in place by this point, the top tier was not strong enough and my argument was really needed to act now because there is no trade—off between the health and economics as we talked about yesterday but also if we do not lockdown, there will be more deaths and we will have to have a tougher lockdown in the future. on reflection and with hindsight, i think that if we had taken action sooner in september of 2020, then we might for instance have avoided the need to close schools which in the end we had to because cases were so high byjanuary. find end we had to because cases were so high byjanuary-_ high by january. and not force a third lockdown? _ high by january. and not force a third lockdown? when - high by january. and not force a third lockdown? when you - high by january. and not force a third lockdown? when you say l high by january. and not force a i third lockdown? when you say the letter lockdown human third one. in late november lockdown we did not shut schools and for the emergence of the kent variant it got the r below one. if you do not lockdown early then you have a tougher lockdown with more economic damage as well as the greater number of deaths and damage to the rest of the nation and this is why i am so emphatic about this being important learning for the future.— learning for the future. mindful of what ou learning for the future. mindful of what you said _ learning for the future. mindful of what you said yesterday _ learning for the future. mindful of what you said yesterday about - learning for the future. mindful ofj what you said yesterday about the circuit breaker proposals, what you were calling for in september and october was eight tougher local system, a proper and well regulated or a more stringent tiering system because that is what you assessed was the best way of avoiding national lockdown but you were not calling for the circuit breaker specifically in september for the reasons you gave yesterday? yes but i was also supportive _ reasons you gave yesterday? yes but i was also supportive of _ reasons you gave yesterday? yes but i was also supportive of national - i was also supportive of national measures to keep r down overall and hardly gone forever a set of measures overall that would have kept it below one i would have supported that. my goal was to get r below one, i did not think a circuit breaker would work in practice but i can see the science behind at... i’m can see the science behind at... i'm sor to can see the science behind at... i'm sorry to interrupt, because it was too short?— too short? yes and it would risk losin: too short? yes and it would risk losing public— too short? yes and it would risk losing public and _ too short? yes and it would risk losing public and parliamentary| losing public and parliamentary support. and by this stage there is a reference on the 8th of october two others are campaigning against us, by this stage those arguing against lockdown in parliament were formulating a great, they were coordinated, they were campaigning and this became more of a problem later on. and so we needed to keep parliamentary consent and public support and that was one of the reasons i thought in practice a circuit breaker proposal was not the best way forward. you know, with hindsight, would it have been better if i had sat down with the scientists and said here on my practical reasons, i do not think you think will work. you have not come in behind my tearing proposal but all of us care about getting r below one but that is not how it progressed but i was arguing as you can see very strongly for action that was necessary to save lives. you were. and as you explained yesterday there was built into the system perhaps a necessary part of any system for a national imposition of countermeasures, that delay between the second or third week in september when the tiering proposal was first mooted on the 12th of october when it was announced? it took time in any event to get to that stage? it took time in any event to get to that stage?— that stage? it did but it did not need to take _ that stage? it did but it did not need to take nearly _ that stage? it did but it did not need to take nearly so - that stage? it did but it did not need to take nearly so long. in j that stage? it did but it did not - need to take nearly so long. in your witness statement _ need to take nearly so long. in your witness statement he _ need to take nearly so long. in your witness statement he said - need to take nearly so long. in your witness statement he said i - need to take nearly so long. in your witness statement he said i was - need to take nearly so long. in your witness statement he said i was in. witness statement he said i was in despair we announced a policy that we knew it would not work, the tiering framework and can you acknowledge and i am just going to paraphrase what you say elsewhere about why you think the tiering system did not work, you have mentioned the territory level was not strong enough and you had been blocked when you try to suggest a more stringent level? secondly epidemiologically, a system based on a shifting tears was always going to level up and thirdly you describe how the way in which there was a local negotiation with the region placed into particular higher tiers meant there was a degree of negotiation, delay, confusion with what packages might be introduced and that confusion for the public? yes. and sadly this is how it played out. when the announcement was made, the proposal was that under the third tier there would be a baseline of national measures and further measures would be a great local leadership and when i say that, i knew that would not work. it was because local leadership had up to that point, largely, demonstrated that point, largely, demonstrated that they were under significant political pressure not to accept measures. there were exceptions to this, for instance, the mayor of liverpooljoe anderson, not the mayor of the liverpool city region, joe anderson, unfortunately no longer with us, he was incredibly supportive and we ended up in liverpool having a package of measures that was effective after a very constructive negotiation and discussion in a spirit of collaboration despite he was a labour mayor, but the parties did not matter at this point but others were not constructive and in some cases actively unhelpful and i felt put politics ahead of public health. i don't want to go into the detail of it but it's right that we acknowledge is that what the entry in the diary of sir patrick vallance adheres to, a reference to manchester and the difficult negotiations that went on in relation to manchester? yes, i would sa the relation to manchester? yes, i would say the diary — relation to manchester? yes, i would say the diary entry — relation to manchester? yes, i would say the diary entry might _ relation to manchester? yes, i would say the diary entry might be - relation to manchester? yes, i would say the diary entry might be better i say the diary entry might be better written as political leadership in the verbal and political leadership in manchester, i've got no beef with the fine city of manchester. your statement _ the fine city of manchester. your statement makes _ the fine city of manchester. your statement makes plain - the fine city of manchester. your statement makes plain that as the end of october approached you were not winning the argument for national lockdown. you therefore took the step of asking health leaders to make the case for a second national lockdown. was that necessary because you felt you were letting the argument? i necessary because you felt you were letting the argument? melt necessary because you felt you were letting the argument?— letting the argument? i felt like we were in a campaign _ letting the argument? i felt like we were in a campaign to _ letting the argument? i felt like we were in a campaign to win - letting the argument? i felt like we were in a campaign to win the - were in a campaign to win the argumentand were in a campaign to win the argument and others were using for a sop to this point i had essentially argued internally, at that point i decided those who were against action, which i saw as extremely dangerous, were using public debate to try to win the debate in the discourse. and i therefore, i corralled the voices that i knew would support what was needed in the public health interest so i spoke to the royal colleges, different parts of the health system, and i said, a system which is normally very, actually remarkably hierarchical, the health system and i said, get out there and make the case, get out there and explain what will happen if we do not take action now and boy, they did! and because everybody, everybody, i did not hear a single voice in the health and social system that was not in favour of more action at that point because we could see what was going to happen. we could see what was going to ha en. ' ' , we could see what was going to hauen. ' , we could see what was going to ha--"en. happen. 12955596 as a whatsapp communication _ happen. 129,555% as a whatsapp communication between - happen. 129,555% as a whatsapp communication between yourself| happen. 129,555% as a whatsapp - communication between yourself and simon case. you say in terms and this is the 30th of october so obviously there is enormous and very difficult but in government as to whether or not the second national lockdown should be imposed. i think it may be the second page. yes, there we are. the reason i am asking you as you say rishi sunak is on the rim country to the stupid will of the prime minister will be under enormous pressure to not do enough once again. and so given that the 30th of october, my question is was that a reference by you when you say to not do enough again, once again, the decision to make the lockdown? the stupid rules is that... don’t the stupid rules is that... don't not the stupid rules is that... don't rrot worry _ the stupid rules is that... don't not worry about _ the stupid rules is that... don't not worry about the _ the stupid rules is that... don't not worry about the stupid - the stupid rules is that... don't. not worry about the stupid rules. the stupid rules is that... don't i not worry about the stupid rules. i not worry about the stupid rules. i was not allowed physically present into this meeting. hat was not allowed physically present into this meeting.— was not allowed physically present into this meeting. not doing enough auain, that into this meeting. not doing enough again. that can _ into this meeting. not doing enough again, that can only _ into this meeting. not doing enough again, that can only be _ into this meeting. not doing enough again, that can only be reference i into this meeting. not doing enough again, that can only be reference to| again, that can only be reference to the debate about lockdown. i again, that can only be reference to the debate about lockdown.- the debate about lockdown. i have been blocked _ the debate about lockdown. i have been blocked from _ the debate about lockdown. i have been blocked from going - the debate about lockdown. i have been blocked from going into - the debate about lockdown. i have been blocked from going into this| been blocked from going into this meeting and you can imagine he made that decision. the prime minister would be under pressure not to do enough salt repeatedly we had taken action but it was not enough to get r below one. fin action but it was not enough to get r below one-— action but it was not enough to get r below one. , ._ ,': :: ., r below one. on this day the 30th of october and — r below one. on this day the 30th of october and you're _ r below one. on this day the 30th of october and you're aware _ r below one. on this day the 30th of october and you're aware of- r below one. on this day the 30th of october and you're aware of course l october and you're aware of course that there had been a forward strategy meeting at chequers on the 25th of october, the covid task force had forwarded advice seeking lockdown on the 28th of october to the prime minister and they presented a further paper on the 30th of october and as you will recall, there was a further paper prepared for the covid o on the 30th of october, that can only be a reference to the debate going on that same day about national lockdown. that same day about national lockdown-— that same day about national lockdown. �* ., that same day about national lockdown. . ., ., ., lockdown. around the time we made a decision for national _ lockdown. around the time we made a decision for national lockdown - lockdown. around the time we made a decision for national lockdown and - decision for national lockdown and it may be this message was drawing the decision—making meeting, you can read it your own way. that the decision-making meeting, you can read it your own way.— read it your own way. at the bottom ofthe read it your own way. at the bottom of the page — read it your own way. at the bottom of the page you _ read it your own way. at the bottom of the page you say _ read it your own way. at the bottom of the page you say i _ read it your own way. at the bottom of the page you say i can _ read it your own way. at the bottom of the page you say i can live - read it your own way. at the bottom of the page you say i can live with i of the page you say i can live with that, that is a reference to a question about non—essential retail and secondary schools but i am very worried about a rearguard action that has screwed us all over too often. what was the reference to rearguard action and what are you referring to? to rearguard action and what are you referring to?— rearguard action and what are you referring to? to the prime minister makin: a referring to? to the prime minister making a decision _ referring to? to the prime minister making a decision in _ referring to? to the prime minister making a decision in principle - referring to? to the prime minister making a decision in principle to i making a decision in principle to take action that was necessary to save lives and then others arguing strongly against it afterwards. i did not actually know who the others were because i would not have been party to those conversations. that was something that we were doubtful. as you explained yesterday as the secretary of state for health and social are your primary concern, perhaps your only concern, had to be the health clinical side at this, terrible debate about the second wave bringing r below one and of course the damage to the commonly on the societal harm brought by another lockdown. == the societal harm brought by another lockdown. _, ., , the societal harm brought by another lockdown. .., ., , . , the societal harm brought by another lockdown. ., , ~ , lockdown. -- the economy. as you seen from — lockdown. -- the economy. as you seen from all _ lockdown. -- the economy. as you seen from all of _ lockdown. -- the economy. as you seen from all of my _ lockdown. -- the economy. as you seen from all of my evidence - seen from all of my evidence including contemporaneous evidence, my focus was on saving lives and making sure we got through this with the nhs not being overwhelmed and as few victim to this horrible virus, throughout the entire period that was my primary motivation. this inquiry has brought evidence that i did not even know myself that demonstrates the work that was going on with the health system as a whole that i led and may petting my voice to that. but, bot, and this is a crucial point, as an mp, as a member of the cabinet, i did not only care about the health interest, the importance of the economy matters as well. and that would have been more damaged by delaying and indeed was because we had to have a tougher lockdown and as i said, i think if we had managed to bring in an earlier lockdown we may not have had to close schools second time around as we did because the case right was so high, injanuary we had to pull every lever is we did in march 2020 and so it is notjust that i was interested in the health outcomes, that was obviously my primary duty and responsibility and concern, but my argument was broader than that. it was that even if you care only about the economy, you need to take the measures early because there is absolutely no way we are going to allow r to be above one until case rates get to a position where the nhs will be overwhelmed and that is always going to be the case until we have a vaccine. is always going to be the case until we have a vaccine.— have a vaccine. is that by essentially _ have a vaccine. is that by essentially a _ have a vaccine. is that by essentially a new - have a vaccine. is that byj essentially a new witness have a vaccine. is that by _ essentially a new witness statement you say there were no excuses second time round? clinically in public health terms, there was simply no proper debate against the imposition of a second national lockdown, economically a second national lockdown imposed earlier would have less effect overall damaging effect on the economy so it seemed to you the arguments were all one way? and the arguments were all one way? and that was true — the arguments were all one way? fific that was true and the more you thought a vaccine was going to come, the sooner you thought a vaccine was going to come, that lowered the validity of any argument the other way. and at this point, i was highly confident that a vaccine would come, we had seen the animal trials and the phase one trials on humans but by october, there was a brief from somewhere in well saint matt hancock is the only person here who thinks there is actually going to be a vaccine so a whitehall source, it is a running joke with other departments but i was looking at the evidence, by the way which was publicly available that there was going to be a vaccine. to give him his credit the prime minister always thought there was going to be a vaccine as well and i had tasked the nhs on being ready to deliver a vaccine from the 1st of december as the reasonable best case scenario, it was nice to be able to talk about reasonable best as supposed to reasonable best as supposed to reasonable first and in the end we started on the 8th of december but that's important for these considerations because if you think a vaccine is coming with any degree of confidence than all of the arguments about persistent lockdown measures fall away because the action that you are going to have to take will be temporary. if you think there is never going to be a vaccine it is a much more difficult conundrum but by now, we were, those close to it were pretty confident there would be a vaccine. for close to it were pretty confident there would be a vaccine. for all of those reasons _ there would be a vaccine. for all of those reasons the _ there would be a vaccine. for all of those reasons the position - there would be a vaccine. for all of those reasons the position you - those reasons the position you reached was that the arguments strongly favoured an earlier lockdown than was in fact imposed and there was no real argument against the imposition of a lockdown, second national lockdown in principle, for all the clinical and economic arguments to which you reference? ., . and economic arguments to which you reference?- your— and economic arguments to which you reference?- your statement i reference? correct. your statement does not suggest — reference? correct. your statement does not suggest in _ reference? correct. your statement does not suggest in relation - reference? correct. your statement does not suggest in relation to - reference? correct. your statement does not suggest in relation to the l does not suggest in relation to the third lockdown, you had any real doubt about the wisdom of its imposition, clinicallya doubt about the wisdom of its imposition, clinically a public health terms and presumably for the same reasons the economic arguments, there was no option but to impose a third national lockdown?— third national lockdown? absolutely and b that third national lockdown? absolutely and by that stage _ third national lockdown? absolutely and by that stage because - third national lockdown? absolutely and by that stage because the - third national lockdown? absolutely and by that stage because the case | and by that stage because the case rates were so high we had to pull every lever which included unfortunately having to close schools. , ., . unfortunately having to close schools. , . . ., , schools. the prevalence rates were so hiuh in schools. the prevalence rates were so high in part _ schools. the prevalence rates were so high in part you _ schools. the prevalence rates were so high in part you describe - schools. the prevalence rates were | so high in part you describe because the november lockdown had not been long enough, it had not been imposed early enough and also you thought there were very real mistakes in relation to the regulations which had been put in place in december underfor had been put in place in december under for christmas? they had contributed to the high prevalence rate. . . contributed to the high prevalence rate. . , ., ., ., ., rate. there was an additional complicating _ rate. there was an additional complicating factor _ rate. there was an additional complicating factor which - rate. there was an additional| complicating factor which was rate. there was an additional - complicating factor which was the offer variant which was more transmissible and therefore by then, we had come to quite a good calibration of what measures she needed to keep r below one and we had got to a point that was embedded within the system but unfortunately they offer variant block those calibrations because it transmitted faster but we did not know exactly how much faster because it was a new variant and so therefore we had to pull every lever and i remember after we made the decision on the 4th of january to go into another full national lockdown, i remember two weeks after that, as harrowing because the case numbers kept going up because the case numbers kept going up as they had in march after we had pulled every lever. and there was nothing more we could do. and because this was a new strain, again we did not know whether everything would be enough to get it under control. and thankfully, we did get it under control just control. and thankfully, we did get it under controljust before the nhs was overwhelmed once again. because ofthe was overwhelmed once again. because of the perennial, _ was overwhelmed once again. because of the perennial, the _ was overwhelmed once again. because of the perennial, the overriding - of the perennial, the overriding imperative to bring r below one because of all the terrible consequences?— because of all the terrible consequences? because of all the terrible conseauences? ., , , because of all the terrible conseuuences? ., , consequences? not 'ust our sites a but as logic _ consequences? notjust our sites a but as logic requires. _ consequences? notjust our sites a but as logic requires. please - consequences? notjust our sites a but as logic requires. please now, | but as logic requires. please now, finall , but as logic requires. please now, finally. some _ but as logic requires. please now, finally, some concluding - but as logic requires. please now, finally, some concluding and - finally, some concluding and disparate issues, can i make plain i am not going to ask any questions about 2021 in large part, the inquiry has of course you're detailed witness statements which deal with the salient features of 2021. but two or three small areas. the inquiry heard evidence from professor ferguson how he resigned as an adviser to sage on account of his transgression. at the time of his transgression. at the time of his resignation you were asked if the police should prosecute him and he said rightly it is a matter for the police but you make the point quite rightly that these were important issues and social distancing rules were important. you obviously transgressed yourself and that it came to light injune 21, on the 24th ofjune. i'm sure you acknowledge the incredible offence and upset that was caused by that revelation? in terms of the impact on public confidence, there were a number of transgressions in public life, overall, do you think those breaches had an impact upon the public propensity to adhere to rules and acknowledging of course that by june 2021 we were out of the worst, there was in may 21 the tail end of there was in may 21 the tail end of the regulations and guidance in place but overall, it was damaging? well thought i would say is the lesson for the future is very clear and it is important that those who make the rules abide by them and i resigned in order to take accountability for my failure to do that. �* ., ., , ., accountability for my failure to do that. �* ., ., i. . , that. and that to your credit must have been — that. and that to your credit must have been in _ that. and that to your credit must have been in a _ that. and that to your credit must have been in a reflection - that. and that to your credit must have been in a reflection of- that. and that to your credit must have been in a reflection of the i have been in a reflection of the fact that you understand the importance, the deleterious consequences of lawbreaking or guidance pecking on public confidence in the public at large? yes. ., ., , ., , ., yes. long covid, your statement makes plain _ yes. long covid, your statement makes plain from _ yes. long covid, your statement makes plain from an _ yes. long covid, your statement makes plain from an early - yes. long covid, your statement makes plain from an early stage| makes plain from an early stage asked nhs england to consider what could be done and you asked simon stephens to develop plans for addressing the issue. from here assistance to the promulgation of nhs easy guidance injune and the announcement injuly about the national announcement in july about the national institute for health research and uk research and innovation and also your convening of a round table injuly, it appears very clear that you were alive to the concerns about long—term consequences from the infection? i was alive to it from before the infection reached our shores. chris whitty raised the concern about the potential of some kind of fatigue syndrome which happens with other viruses as well. and then, after the first pic i was acutely aware of it not least because members of my family were affected by long covid including my mother who still attends a clinic so this was very close to my heart. to attends a clinic so this was very close to my heart.— attends a clinic so this was very close to my heart. to what extent when ou close to my heart. to what extent when you and _ close to my heart. to what extent when you and your _ close to my heart. to what extent when you and your colleagues - close to my heart. to what extent - when you and your colleagues became aware of long—term consequences of infection did that understanding feed its way into the debate about the mechanics of non—pharmaceutical interventions and then subsequently the relaxation of restrictions? what role and to what extent did the issue of long covid play out in the debate about the mechanics? it matters because it makes the virus even worse, it makes the impact of the virus even worse. and so reinforce the arguments that we were making of course the best way to avoid long covid is to take the measures necessary to reduce the amount of covid. and so it actually calls for the same policy prescription in terms of preventing covid and therefore