and he saw it right from the beginning and he made important decisions on the likes of lockdown, and test and try scan on ppp, and care homes and then the vaccine roll—out. so there is plenty for him to be asked about here at the inquiry, but the criticism has been ongoing over the last few weeks. we have heard from civil servants and aides who say that he had new colour levels of confidence, he had a tendency to over promise and under deliver, and then those who said he downright lied. we have heard that on a number of occasions from civil servants and from dominic cummings, borisjohnson�*s closest servants and from dominic cummings, boris johnson's closest aide. servants and from dominic cummings, borisjohnson�*s closest aide. we boris johnson's closest aide. we have found out, according to documents in the inquiry, that there were calls for him to be sacked. he didn't get sacked, in the end he resigned because he broke his own social distancing rules by having an affair with his colleague, and that is what ended his government career. there has been some defence of matt hancock, though. earlier this week we heard from michael gove, his cabinet colleague, who said matt hancock approached decision—making with wisdom and foresight and he said he had a high opinion of matt hancock and he rose to the occasion. but i think he will go in all guns blazing and will be very defensive of his record. he has appeared in the inquiry earlier in the year and at that time gave a very solemn apology to families and victims, but he was punchy, and he defends his record. it has been very much criticised over the last few weeks. we are expecting this to last all day with matt hancock. what do you think the major issues that are going to come up this morning? weill. going to come up this morning? well, i don't know— going to come up this morning? well, i don't know what _ going to come up this morning? well, i don't know what the _ going to come up this morning? -ii i don't know what the timing of what to talk to him about it, but for example yesterday we heard from dame jenny harries, she was the deputy chief medical officer at the time of the pandemic, and she talked about an e—mail that was sent at the time in march 2020 in which an official had basically said that symptomatic patients would have to be sent to care homes to stop the nhs being clogged up. she said that was an invitation for hospitals to send infected people to care homes, but that was what was going to have to happen because of the situation and to stop the nhs becoming overwhelmed. don't forget matt hancock said in may of 2020 that the government would throw a protective ring around care homes, so a really contentious issue about exactly what was done and was enough done to look after care homes? the issue of care homes will probably be touched upon and it will be talked about in a later module at the inquiry, but no doubt it will come up today. we will hear more about the chaotic nature that we have been hearing so much about right at the centre of power, whether that was downing street, how these decisions were made as a whole, how the structures all work together, so we will certainly hear about that. but take your pick. he was right at the centre of all these important decisions made during the pandemic. it important decisions made during the andemic. , , ., pandemic. it will be interesting to hear his tone, _ pandemic. it will be interesting to hear his tone, you _ pandemic. it will be interesting to hear his tone, you talked - pandemic. it will be interesting to hear his tone, you talked about i pandemic. it will be interesting to l hear his tone, you talked about that earlier. do you think he will come in very offensive —— defensive, very apologetic? i in very offensive -- defensive, very apologetic?— apologetic? i think a bit of both because he _ apologetic? i think a bit of both because he is _ apologetic? i think a bit of both because he is very _ apologetic? i think a bit of both because he is very aware - apologetic? i think a bit of both because he is very aware of - apologetic? i think a bit of both | because he is very aware of how apologetic? i think a bit of both - because he is very aware of how he appears personally and he has got so much personal criticism over the last few weeks. i was talking to a protester and she said she felt there was an element of the government scapegoating matt hancock. he is not in government any more and he is not a conservative mp, so she thought, and it is a feeling that has been echoed by other politicians and matt hancock himself, orallies other politicians and matt hancock himself, or allies of his, that he is being seen as a scapegoat because he is an easy hit, if you like. there will be a definite attempt to defend his record. that was the toner last time he was here. he came toner last time he was here. he came to the inquiry a few months ago when he was talking about the uk's preparedness for a pandemic. again defensive, but more is at stake this time because it implicates him personally. so, yes, take this opportunity to set the record straight. opportunity to set the record straiuht. ~ . ., straight. we are living there for now as straight. we are living there for new as the _ straight. we are living there for new as the is — straight. we are living there for now as the is beginning. - straight. we are living there for now as the is beginning. mr- straight. we are living there for - now as the is beginning. mr hancock, ma i cive now as the is beginning. mr hancock, may i give you _ now as the is beginning. mr hancock, may i give you the — now as the is beginning. mr hancock, may i give you the same _ now as the is beginning. mr hancock, may i give you the same apology - now as the is beginning. mr hancock, may i give you the same apology i - may i give you the same apology i have _ may i give you the same apology i have given — may i give you the same apology i have given to other witnesses. but thank_ have given to other witnesses. but thank you — have given to other witnesses. but thank you for coming. not have given to other witnesses. but thank you for coming.— thank you for coming. not at all. could you _ thank you for coming. not at all. could you commit _ thank you for coming. not at all. could you commit your— thank you for coming. not at all. could you commit your evidence | thank you for coming. not at all. i could you commit your evidence by giving us your full could you commit your evidence by giving us yourfull name? yes. could you commit your evidence by giving us your full name?— could you commit your evidence by giving us your full name? yes, i am matthew giving us your full name? yes, i am matthewjohn _ giving us your full name? yes, i am matthew john david _ giving us your full name? yes, i am matthewjohn david hancock. - giving us your full name? yes, i am matthew john david hancock. you l giving us your full name? yes, i am l matthew john david hancock. you are the mp for west _ matthew john david hancock. you are the mp for west suffolk _ matthew john david hancock. you are the mp for west suffolk and - matthew john david hancock. you are the mp for west suffolk and we - matthew john david hancock. you are the mp for west suffolk and we have | the mp for west suffolk and we have received evidence in module one from you that you are the paymaster general and ministerfor the you that you are the paymaster general and minister for the cabinet office from may 2015 to 2016 and then you served as secretary of state for health and social care from the 9th ofjuly 2018, when you took over from jeremy hunt mp, and you served in that post until the 26th ofjune 2021 when you resigned. that is right. 26th ofjune 2021 when you resigned. that is right-— that is right. thank you for the rovision that is right. thank you for the provision of — that is right. thank you for the provision of a _ that is right. thank you for the provision of a further _ that is right. thank you for the i provision of a further statement. you obviously provided a great deal of information in module one when you gave evidence and you were assisted by providing a lengthy statement, 176 pages, which you can see on the screen, and also a supplementary statement in which he responded to a number of additional areas in the inquiry. ijust want to put into play some of the building blocks necessary for the questions that will follow. the inquiry has, i should make plain, received a copy of your book, pandemic diaries, which obviously consist of a significant contribution to the debate about the response to coronavirus. can i please ask you to make plain that notwithstanding that it is entitled pandemic diaries, it is, to use your word, and account piece together from formal papers, notes, voice apps and interviews? it is written as contemporaneous rather than with hindsight, but it was written after the pandemic using contemporaneous materials. 50 contemporaneous materials. so stylistically it is not a diary, it is pieced together and is called a diary? is pieced together and is called a dia ? ., . , , diary? correct, it is my recollections. - diary? correct, it is my recollections. in - diary? correct, it is my recollections. in the i diary? correct, it is my- recollections. in the diaries so called and _ recollections. in the diaries so called and in _ recollections. in the diaries so called and in your— recollections. in the diaries so called and in your statement l recollections. in the diaries so i called and in your statement you make plain that the remit of the department of health and social care was a vast one. it had of course all its usual business, it was the lead government department in response to this national public health crisis and the obligations upon it were, to use your words, fast and fast paced. yes. in use your words, fast and fast paced. yes. ., ., , ., use your words, fast and fast paced. yes. ., ., i. ., .. , yes. in module one you accepted in the course — yes. in module one you accepted in the course of _ yes. in module one you accepted in the course of your _ yes. in module one you accepted in the course of your evidence - yes. in module one you accepted in the course of your evidence under l the course of your evidence under oath that there had been a serious and significant inadequacy of preparation within the dhs e for a pandemic health emergency. maybe inquiry take from that acceptance that on the cusp of the pandemic in january 2020 the absence of preparation had serious, significant consequences in terms of its ability to be able to respond? this consequences in terms of its ability to be able to respond? as secretary of state for — to be able to respond? as secretary of state for health _ to be able to respond? as secretary of state for health and _ to be able to respond? as secretary of state for health and social- to be able to respond? as secretary of state for health and social care i of state for health and social care i was responsible notjust for the department, but ministerial it responsible for the wider health family as well, the agencies, the biggest being the nhs itself, and public health england and others. and it is absolutely true, as i set out in my evidence in module one, that the plans that we had were not adequate. and as we discussed in module one, i think that was on two basis. the first is in practical terms, for instance the uk didn't have a significant testing capability, and in terms of the wrong doctrine, which was that all the planning based on the 2011 pandemic flu plan on which was based on the assumption that we would be dealing with the consequences of a pandemic rather than try to suppress a pandemic. pandemic rather than try to suppress a pandemic— a pandemic. does it follow from the absence of preparation _ a pandemic. does it follow from the absence of preparation and - a pandemic. does it follow from the absence of preparation and perhapsj absence of preparation and perhaps the way in which in terms of planning the department, as well as the rest of government, it may be said to have been pointing in the wrong direction? that when the dhse and yourself were required to address the crisis and the breaking of the crisis in january and february, it became apparent that in terms of the structure, the personnel, the resourcing, the money, as well as the absence of plans to deal with the coronavirus, that you were in very real difficulties?— that you were in very real difficulties? ~ ., , ., difficulties? well, a couple of oints. i difficulties? well, a couple of points. i take _ difficulties? well, a couple of points. i take issue _ difficulties? well, a couple of points. i take issue with - difficulties? well, a couple of. points. i take issue with absence difficulties? well, a couple of- points. i take issue with absence of a plan. there was not an absence of a plan. there was not an absence of a plan, there were plans. i had critiqued the plans, i had said that they were not adequate, but there were plans in place. there was the 2011 pandemic plan, there had been a sickness exercise underjeremy sickness exercise under jeremy hunt's sickness exercise underjeremy hunt's position as secretary of state. so there were plans. there were areas in which the early response was very strong. pag got a diagnostic test together within a matter of days. the early surveillance essentially led by professor van tan was very good and the uk's role internationally was strong in the first few weeks. so there were plans. but the plans were inadequate in ways that we discussed inadequate in ways that we discussed in module one. with respect directly to the impact of that on the department, of course when a pandemic strikes, even if you have the very best plans, those responsible for responding would have to strengthen the operation, would have to tool up. and in the early days we expanded the department very significantly and ultimately we brought in army personnel, for instance, a lot more clinical personnel, and we took people off non—pandemic related work and put them onto pandemic —related work. all of these things were in response to the pandemic. they would have been needed even if we had the perfect plan, even if we learnt all the lessons. next time there is a pandemic, and there will be another one, of course the department of health will have to shift to respond to those challenges. you health will have to shift to respond to those challenges.— to those challenges. you say there were plans — to those challenges. you say there were plans and _ to those challenges. you say there were plans and you _ to those challenges. you say there were plans and you are _ to those challenges. you say there were plans and you are astute - to those challenges. you say there were plans and you are astute to l were plans and you are astute to make the point that there was a plan, the 2011 pandemic flu strategy, but your statement itself says, and i quote, there was no book or report to pull off the shelf to tell us how to handle a pandemic. yes. {iii tell us how to handle a pandemic. yes. .., , tell us how to handle a pandemic. yes. _, , ., , tell us how to handle a pandemic. yes. , yes. of course, as with responding to any crisis _ yes. of course, as with responding to any crisis or _ yes. of course, as with responding to any crisis or emergency - yes. of course, as with responding to any crisis or emergency face - yes. of course, as with responding to any crisis or emergency face by l to any crisis or emergency face by government, the absence of a book or a report to tell you how to do it is going to have an impact on your practical efficiency and your ability to respond?- practical efficiency and your ability to respond? yes, this was the first major— ability to respond? yes, this was the first major pandemic - ability to respond? yes, this was the first major pandemic in - ability to respond? yes, this was the first major pandemic in living memory, there wasn't anybody who had responded to it, none of my living predecessors has had to do with something on this scale. indeed. you are aware from _ something on this scale. indeed. you are aware from the _ something on this scale. indeed. you are aware from the witness _ something on this scale. indeed. you| are aware from the witness statement of lord sedwill, the cabinet secretary, that the report to the prime minister in the summer of 2020 where he said the dhse was neither structured nor resourced for a public health crisis of this magnitude. granted it is a very broad observation and it doesn't deal with the institutional links between the dhse and the nhs, or the scientific advisory structure, or the possibility that there would be movements in personnel for ramping up movements in personnel for ramping up and funding for the department, but in a broad sense that is a correct proposition, is it not? structurally and in terms of resources when the crisis broke, the dhse was under part?— resources when the crisis broke, the dhse was under part? well, he didn't use the word — dhse was under part? well, he didn't use the word under _ dhse was under part? well, he didn't use the word under par, _ dhse was under part? well, he didn't use the word under par, they - dhse was under part? well, he didn't use the word under par, they are - use the word under par, they are your words. use the word under par, they are yourwords. i use the word under par, they are your words. i would reject that because the senior personnel in the dhse were absolutely superb and rose to the challenge. but it is blazingly obvious that when a pandemic strikes the health department is going to have more to do and so i regard the comet is very straightforward. can do and so i regard the comet is very straightforward.— do and so i regard the comet is very straightforward. can we have 273901, .ae. straightforward. can we have 273901, -a . e 78. straightforward. can we have 273901, page 78- this — straightforward. can we have 273901, page 78- this is _ straightforward. can we have 273901, page 78. this is an _ straightforward. can we have 273901, page 78. this is an extract _ straightforward. can we have 273901, page 78. this is an extract from - straightforward. can we have 273901, page 78. this is an extract from sir i page 78. this is an extract from sir patrick vallance's diaries, dated the 3rd ofjune 2020. could we have paid 587. —— page 587. also clear a lack of grip in dhse, this is injuly, very good analysis, no grip on actions. page 594. e—mailfrom within e—mail from within dhse e—mailfrom within dhse described it as ungovernable and with competing parts. i will summarise, as ungovernable and with competing parts. iwill summarise, there as ungovernable and with competing parts. i will summarise, there are other diary entries into patrick vallance's notes he says it is clear that once again the dhs e has done nothing. people love in point, no clear operational accountability, and so on. —— lobbying in. regardless of what reasonable mitigation might be offered and there is mitigation offered, senior figures in government continue to express concern over a number of months, sir patrick vallance and others, about the state of the dhse, correct? ~ ., �* ~ ., correct? well, i don't know whether these parts — correct? well, i don't know whether these parts of _ correct? well, i don't know whether these parts of sir _ correct? well, i don't know whether these parts of sir patrick _ correct? well, i don't know whether these parts of sir patrick pulled - these parts of sir patrick pulled back diaries were contemporaneous because i know some were written after the event. because i know some were written after the event-— because i know some were written after the event. with re