his immigration minister robert jenrick. the bell they have published so far does allow ministers to override some parts of the human rights act, but not completely ignored all european human rights laws, which was something that some mps on the right of the conservative party had been calling for. that has led to backlash from that wing of his party, including the former home secretary suella braverman, who has told the bbc this morning that this would leave the rwanda bill open to further legal challenges from potential asylum seekers and their representatives as well. so i think there will be a couple of key questions that rishi sunak will be facing in this press conference. firstly, there is the question hanging over him today of who on earth will he replace robertjenrick with? or can be the immigration minister at this time? i think this is a tricky question because robert jenrick was somebody who was a close ally of his, was supposed to be someone very loyal to rishi sunak until his resignation. you will appease both wings of the party at this time? then there is the question of whether he really believes that this bill can now get through if the tory right and labour join together to vote it down. and the overarching question of all of this, well the rwanda plan actually work? these are always questions that rishi sunak will face this morning, he will face questions from journalists but also no doubt from his own mps on a day when he has told them, and downing street have made it clear, that they need to, in their words, made it clear, that they need to, in theirwords, unite made it clear, that they need to, in their words, unite or die. made it clear, that they need to, in theirwords, unite or die. i made it clear, that they need to, in their words, unite or die. i think this is an incredibly testing moment for his leadership.— for his leadership. suella braverman... _ for his leadership. suella braverman. .. chris - for his leadership. suellal braverman. .. chris mason for his leadership. suella - braverman. .. chris mason called it for his leadership. suella _ braverman. .. chris mason called it a braverman... chris mason called it a lukewarm response when she was asked when rishi sunak will lead the tories are the next general election? what is key now what happens and what the supporters of suella braverman do next stop i think her words were that she hoped he would still lead the conservative party into the next general election. party into the next general election-— party into the next general election. ., ., , , election. the word hoped being re election. the word hoped being pretty key- _ election. the word hoped being pretty key- i — election. the word hoped being pretty key. ithink— election. the word hoped being pretty key. i think it _ election. the word hoped being pretty key. i think it certainly . election. the word hoped being. pretty key. i think it certainly did not suggest that she has a huge amount of confidence in him herself. we know their relationship has of course been tested ever since she was sacked as his home secretary. she has been pretty damning already about his response when it comes to immigration and certain immigration policies that she wanted to push through. as you say, the big question now is what to her supporters to come up to the critics of this bill do next? do they start trying to trigger a confidence vote in the prime minister again? we have already had several of those, as we know, in the last two years. would they want to do that again? a question that many in westminster are asking this morning. there's also the question of the vote itself, when this bill does go to a vote among mps in parliament, do they vote against it? in itself, is that a test of confidence in the prime minister and the government at this time? there is a sort of air of 2018 about all of this. if you remember during the brexiteers over that period where we saw similar sort of faction is emerging in the conservative party and really key test for the prime minister about whether they can unite or whether their leadership isjust whether they can unite or whether their leadership is just not up to that test. their leadership is 'ust not up to that test. ., ~ , ., , their leadership is 'ust not up to that test. ., ~' , ., , . ~ that test. thank you very much. we will be live — that test. thank you very much. we will be live at _ that test. thank you very much. we will be live at downing _ that test. thank you very much. we will be live at downing street - that test. thank you very much. we will be live at downing street when| will be live at downing street when the prime minister holds that a news conference later. you are watching bbc news. let's go to the covid inquiry because borisjohnson has just started his second day of questioning. just started his second day of questioning-— questioning. the underlying scientific advice _ questioning. the underlying scientific advice was - questioning. the underlying scientific advice was that i questioning. the underlying - scientific advice was that staying 20 metres away from other people remained the best way of reducing corona transmission —— staying two metres away. it is equally apparent that there was clear economic pressure upon you to reduce the two metre rule in order to make business viable. once the two metre, one metre rule issue a particularly acute example of that balance between public health and economic considerations? in a between public health and economic considerations?— considerations? in a way, it certainly — considerations? in a way, it certainly was. _ considerations? in a way, it certainly was. but - considerations? in a way, it certainly was. but i - considerations? in a way, it certainly was. but i think i considerations? in a way, it certainly was. but i think it| considerations? in a way, it - certainly was. but i think it wasn't quite _ certainly was. but i think it wasn't quite as_ certainly was. but i think it wasn't quite as simple as that. the two meirem — quite as simple as that. the two metre... your observation that the scientists— metre... your observation that the scientists were recommending two metres_ scientists were recommending two metres is— scientists were recommending two metres is of course correct, or many scientists— metres is of course correct, or many scientists were recommending two metres _ scientists were recommending two metres. some were not, some are saying — metres. some were not, some are saying one _ metres. some were not, some are saying one metre. but it was also true that— saying one metre. but it was also true that three metres would have been _ true that three metres would have been better, four or five metres would _ been better, four or five metres would have been epidemiologically more _ would have been epidemiologically more effective than two metres. it was a _ more effective than two metres. it was a question of where to draw the line. was a question of where to draw the line and _ was a question of where to draw the line. and there was plenty of evidence _ line. and there was plenty of evidence from around the world that other— evidence from around the world that other countries had gone from... down _ other countries had gone from... down to— other countries had gone from... down to one _ other countries had gone from... down to one metre. there were other international— down to one metre. there were other international comparisons that had done _ international comparisons that had done it— international comparisons that had done it safely. so, although you are quite _ done it safely. so, although you are quite correct that hospitality and other— quite correct that hospitality and other sectors were desperate to be able to— other sectors were desperate to be able to operate, it was very, very difficult _ able to operate, it was very, very difficult under the two metre rule, did not— difficult under the two metre rule, did not seem to me, on balance, to be epidemiologically unsound to do it. i be epidemiologically unsound to do it i of— be epidemiologically unsound to do it. i of course had to balance the very— it. i of course had to balance the very considerable hardship that had been caused to people by the effective closure of hospitality as a result — effective closure of hospitality as a result of the two metre rule. younq — a result of the two metre rule. young mackay posed the question the way i young mackay posed the question the way i did _ young mackay posed the question the way i did because i've actually quoted — way i did because i've actually quoted your own words- way i did because i've actually quoted your own words from your summin: quoted your own words from your summing up _ quoted your own words from your summing up of— quoted your own words from your summing up of that _ quoted your own words from your summing up of that cabinet - quoted your own words from your| summing up of that cabinet office meeting on the 2nd ofjune. the prime minister said, the underlying scientific advice, obviously the combination of the various views you had received, was that staying two metres away from people remained the best way of reducing coronavirus transmission. there was no doubt... three metres would have been even better~ _ three metres would have been even better. , ., , ., better. indeed, but there was no doubt at all _ better. indeed, but there was no doubt at all that _ better. indeed, but there was no | doubt at all that epidemiologically the pre—existing two metre rule was the pre—existing two metre rule was the best way to proceed epidemiologically, but you were under, understandably, intense economic pressure to try to take a different path in order to be able to alleviate the economic burden. are plenty of other countries that had done — are plenty of other countries that had done the same. that are plenty of other countries that had done the same.— are plenty of other countries that had done the same. that debate took lace in had done the same. that debate took place in advance _ had done the same. that debate took place in advance of _ had done the same. that debate took place in advance of the _ had done the same. that debate took place in advance of the eat _ had done the same. that debate took place in advance of the eat out - had done the same. that debate took place in advance of the eat out to - place in advance of the eat out to help out scheme, which was put into place in august in those mid week days, tuesday, wednesday, thursday during the four weeks of august. in your statement, you made plain that your statement, you made plain that you and the chancellor thought there was a sound policy rationale for the introduction of the scheme. where the policy rationale is, firstly, the policy rationale is, firstly, the obvious economic support for the hospitality sector, but secondly, to influence social behaviour by incentivising the public to engage more generally endorse hospitality. that was the thinking. the more generally endorse hospitality. that was the thinking.— that was the thinking. the thinking was that the _ that was the thinking. the thinking was that the country _ that was the thinking. the thinking was that the country had _ that was the thinking. the thinking was that the country had made - that was the thinking. the thinking was that the country had made a i that was the thinking. the thinking i was that the country had made a huge effort, _ was that the country had made a huge effort, that— was that the country had made a huge effort, that we had got the r rate down _ effort, that we had got the r rate down below one, the disease was no longer— down below one, the disease was no longer spreading in the way it had been, _ longer spreading in the way it had been. and — longer spreading in the way it had been, and within the budget of risk, it was_ been, and within the budget of risk, it was now— been, and within the budget of risk, it was now possible to open up hospitality. that being so, logically, if we were going to take advantage of that, if we were going to allow— advantage of that, if we were going to allow people to take advantage, allow _ to allow people to take advantage, allow the _ to allow people to take advantage, allow the hospitality sector to take advantage of the freedom that our collective — advantage of the freedom that our collective efforts had won them, then it _ collective efforts had won them, then it seemed to me to make sense to make _ then it seemed to me to make sense to make sure that they actually had some _ to make sure that they actually had some customers. that was my thinking. — some customers. that was my thinking. it— some customers. that was my thinking. it seemed to me that if it was safe _ thinking. it seemed to me that if it was safe to — thinking. it seemed to me that if it was safe to open hospitality, then it must— was safe to open hospitality, then it must be — was safe to open hospitality, then it must be safe for people to go to hospitality. do it must be safe for people to go to hositali . ,, it must be safe for people to go to hospitalitv-— hospitality. do you accept, as professor _ hospitality. do you accept, as professor edmonds _ hospitality. do you accept, as professor edmonds said i hospitality. do you accept, as professor edmonds said in i hospitality. do you accept, as| professor edmonds said in his evidence to this inquiry, it is one thing to take your foot off the brake, which is of course what had been done in terms of easing the restrictions injune and july, but to put your foot on the accelerator is by application quite different. use the word progress, but i'm going to suggest to you that it is a different thing to do. utmost resect different thing to do. utmost respect for — different thing to do. utmost respect for professor - different thing to do. utmost i respect for professor edmonds. all different thing to do. utmost - respect for professor edmonds. all i would _ respect for professor edmonds. all i would say— respect for professor edmonds. all i would say is — respect for professor edmonds. all i would say is that at the time the eat 0ut— would say is that at the time the eat out to — would say is that at the time the eat out to help out policy was being aired with _ eat out to help out policy was being aired with me for the first time, it did not— aired with me for the first time, it did not seem... it was not presented to me _ did not seem... it was not presented to me as— did not seem... it was not presented to me as an — did not seem... it was not presented to me as an acceleration, simply somethinq — to me as an acceleration, simply something to make sense of the freedoms — something to make sense of the freedoms that we were already qivinq — freedoms that we were already qivinq it— freedoms that we were already giving. it was not... i must emphasise, it was not at the time presented — emphasise, it was not at the time presented to me as something that would _ presented to me as something that would add — presented to me as something that would add to the budget of risk. but it was would add to the budget of risk. it was not would add to the budget of risk. emit it was not being presented to you by the scientist, was it? it was being presented to you by the treasury and the chancellor of the exchequer. the material makes it quite plain that they were the ones who proposed the scheme. the paperwork makes it absolutely plain. at the same time, your chief medical officer, professor chris whitty, at a covid meeting on the 22nd ofjune, was saying that in general terms the proposed easing of restrictions, with relation to indoor hospitality, was at the top end of the risk boundary. so you knew that there was an element of risk in this. there had to be a degree of epidemiological gamble. that is logical and fair. i do epidemiological gamble. that is logical and fair.— logical and fair. i do not think that i logical and fair. i do not think that l thought _ logical and fair. i do not think that l thought that _ logical and fair. i do not think that l thought that that - logical and fair. i do not think. that i thought that that scheme logical and fair. i do not think- that i thought that that scheme in itself_ that i thought that that scheme in itself was — that i thought that that scheme in itself was a particular gamble at the time — itself was a particular gamble at the time. it certainly wasn't presented to me as such. nor am i confident— presented to me as such. nor am i confident that there is very substantial evidence that it did indeed — substantial evidence that it did indeed add to the r. although i differ— indeed add to the r. although i differ to — indeed add to the r. although i differ to what your inquiry has discovered. i cannot see anything that conclusively shows that it made a bi- that conclusively shows that it made a big difference. at the time, it wasn't — a big difference. at the time, it wasn't presented to me is something that would _ wasn't presented to me is something that would. can wasn't presented to me is something that would. ., wasn't presented to me is something that would. . ., ,': ::j~ ~ that would. can we have 232086, -a . es that would. can we have 232086, pages one- _ that would. can we have 232086, pages one- we — that would. can we have 232086, pages one. we will _ that would. can we have 232086, pages one. we will sit _ that would. can we have 232086, pages one. we will sit with i that would. can we have 232086, pages one. we will sit with one . that would. can we have 232086, | pages one. we will sit with one for the moment. this isjust to demonstrate, mrjohnson, that there was considerable debate between the treasury and number ten in relation to a voucher scheme which became the eat out to help out scheme. this is an e—mailfrom the eat out to help out scheme. this is an e—mail from the treasury, dated the 22nd of may. it refers to... the bottom of the page, the chancellor asking her to thank all the team is the meeting with you went very well. you complimented him on doing a greatjob. if wejust you complimented him on doing a greatjob. if we just go over the page, we can see a reference to presenting a plan forjuly. and then right at the bottom of the screen, chancellor clear... people save not spent, pm very keen on vouchers idea. there was a general debate going on for some time before august, and you expressed your optimism, as has been described, that the scheme was a good idea. the material does indeed seem to indicate that there was not a significant increase in infection after the scheme, although there is any material some suggestion it may have gone up to some degree, in different parts of the country, as you might expect. but you knew that the treasury and hmrc had not in fact sought scientific advice on the epidemiological consequences of the scheme. that must have been apparent to you. i scheme. that must have been apparent to ou. , , , ., ., to you. i see in my statement that i thou . ht to you. i see in my statement that i thought chris _ to you. i see in my statement that i thought chris and _ to you. i see in my statement that i thought chris and patrick— to you. i see in my statement that i thought chris and patrick must i to you. i see in my statement that i | thought chris and patrick must have known _ thought chris and patrick must have known or— thought chris and patrick must have known or did know about the eat out to help— known or did know about the eat out to help out. i said that because it wasn't _ to help out. i said that because it wasn't a _ to help out. i said that because it wasn't a very secret thing. i thought— wasn't a very secret thing. i thought it was a pretty well— publicised scheme. thought it was a pretty well—publicised scheme. i am fairly confident— well—publicised scheme. i am fairly confident that it was discussed several— confident that it was discussed several times in meetings at which i believe _ several times in meetings at which i believe they must have been present. i understand that the do not feel that they— i understand that the do not feel that they were properly consulted. and i_ that they were properly consulted. and i remember being... but i don't quite— and i remember being... but i don't quite understand how that could have happened. _ quite understand how that could have happened, to be honest. i remember being _ happened, to be honest. i remember being surprised later, i think it was in — being surprised later, i think it was in september, when chris said... i was in september, when chris said... i thought. _ was in september, when chris said... i thought, that was funny. i did not remember— i thought, that was funny. i did not remember any previous controversy about— remember any previous controversy about it _ remember any previous controversy about it in — remember any previous controversy about it. , ., remember any previous controversy aboutit. , ., g , remember any previous controversy aboutit. . ., . , ., about it. injune and july, you had about it. injune and july, you had a number of— about it. injune and july, you had a number of bilateral— about it. injune and july, you had a number of bilateral meetings i about it. injune and july, you had i a number of bilateral meetings with the treasury and the chancellor, which is that in the scheme is debated. there were no scientists present at any of those meetings. no, but it would have been normal for a _ no, but it would have been normal for a project like that, a scheme like that— for a project like that, a scheme like that to _ for a project like that, a scheme like that to have gone through the covid _ like that to have gone through the covid task— like that to have gone through the covid task force. it seemed to me odd that _ covid task force. it seemed to me odd that the scientists hadn't been made _ odd that the scientists hadn't been made aware of it. so odd that the scientists hadn't been made aware of it.— odd that the scientists hadn't been made aware of it. so you knew they had not made aware of it. so you knew they had rrot been _ made aware of it. so you knew they had not been made _ made aware of it. so you knew they had not been made aware - made aware of it. so you knew they had not been made aware of - made aware of it. so you knew they had not been made aware of it? i i had not been made aware of it? i don't think i said that. it is i had not been made aware of it? i don't think i said that. it is not i don't think i said that. it is not what i understood. _ don't think i said that. it is not what i understood. sorry, i don't think i said that. it is not what i understood. sorry, do l don't think i said that. it is not i what i understood. sorry, do you mean how? _ what i understood. sorry, do you mean how? i— what i understood. sorry, do you mean now? i thought _ what i understood. sorry, do you mean now? i thought you - what i understood. sorry, do you mean now? i thought you meant| what i understood. sorry, do you i mean now? i thought you meant at the time. , , , , time. so, my surprise was in, i think it was— time. so, my surprise was in, i think it was something - time. so, my surprise was in, i think it was something like i think it was something like september, 16th or thereabouts, quite _ september, 16th or thereabouts, quite a _ september, 16th or thereabouts, quite a long time afterwards, when i heard _ quite a long time afterwards, when i heard chris — quite a long time afterwards, when i heard chris in a covid meeting see it out— heard chris in a covid meeting see it out to _ heard chris in a covid meeting see it out to help out hurt the virus. i thought. — it out to help out hurt the virus. i thought, that was funny because i did not— thought, that was funny because i did not remember this being something that had previously seemed to attract— something that had previously seemed to attract objection or controversy. please _ to attract objection or controversy. please maybe be clear about this, no scientists were present at any of the bilateral discussions about what became the eat out to help out scheme? ., . , became the eat out to help out scheme? ., ., , ., ., , became the eat out to help out scheme? ., .,, ., .,, scheme? not as far as i can remember- _ scheme? not as far as i can remember. the _ scheme? not as far as i can remember. the paperwork, j scheme? not as far as i can i remember. the paperwork, you obviously received _ remember. the paperwork, you obviously received a _ remember. the paperwork, you obviously received a number i remember. the paperwork, you obviously received a number of| obviously received a number of papers, made no reference, did it, to the scheme being supported or proposed by the epidemiological experts? it proposed by the epidemiological exerts? �* _ proposed by the epidemiological exerts? �* ., �* proposed by the epidemiological exerts? ., �* ., experts? it didn't say that. but on the other hand, _ experts? it didn't say that. but on the other hand, i _ experts? it didn't say that. but on the other hand, i would _ experts? it didn't say that. but on the other hand, i would not i experts? it didn't say that. but on the other hand, i would not have. the other hand, i would not have necessarily— the other hand, i would not have necessarily drawn the conclusion from _ necessarily drawn the conclusion from that— necessarily drawn the conclusion from that that it had either been opposed — from that that it had either been opposed or not discussed with them. in opposed or not discussed with them. in your— opposed or not discussed with them. in your statement, you do see in terms the scheme was, quote, to use your words, terms the scheme was, quote, to use yourwords, properly terms the scheme was, quote, to use your words, properly discussed, including with chris and patrick. i did say that, that was my belief. i don't _ did say that, that was my belief. i don't understand how that... i don't understand — don't understand how that... i don't understand how something as well— publicised understand how something as well—publicised as that understand how something as well— publicised as that could have been _ well— publicised as that could have been smuggled past the scientific advisers — been smuggled past the scientific advisers. i don't see how that could have _ advisers. i don't see how that could have happened. so advisers. i don't see how that could have happened-— have happened. so that we are entirely clear _ have happened. so that we are entirely clear about _ have happened. so that we are entirely clear about this, i have happened. so that we are entirely clear about this, your. entirely clear about this, your statement appears to positively suggest that it was properly discussed, including with chris and patrick. you are the one who suggested in your statement that the persons with whom it was discussed included... excuse me. included the cmo and the gcse. now today you are saying you are not sure whether it was discussed with them, you're surprised it wasn't. the was discussed with them, you're surprised it wasn't.— surprised it wasn't. the reason i said that in _ surprised it wasn't. the reason i said that in my _ surprised it wasn't. the reason i said that in my statement i surprised it wasn't. the reason i said that in my statement was l said that in my statement was because — said that in my statement was because i, frankly, assumed it must have been— because i, frankly, assumed it must have been discussed with them. i am perplexed _ have been discussed with them. i am perplexed as to how something as significant as that could have got through — significant as that could have got through... there must have been several— through... there must have been several meetings of covid s and o in which _ several meetings of covid s and o in which it— several meetings of covid s and o in which it was— several meetings of covid s and o in which it was discussed. you understand _ which it was discussed. you understand you _ which it was discussed. you understand you say - which it was discussed. you understand you say it i which it was discussed. gm. understand you say it was properly discussed. that word properly is your word, mr discussed. that word properly is yourword, mrjohnson, not the inquiry�*s your word, mrjohnson, not the inuui ' ., , , your word, mrjohnson, not the inuui ' . , , ._ inquiry's that is my memory. i remember _ inquiry's that is my memory. i remember the _ inquiry's that is my memory. i remember the scheme - inquiry's that is my memory. i remember the scheme at i inquiry's that is my memory. i i remember the scheme at coming up several— remember the scheme at coming up several times. that is why, as i have _ several times. that is why, as i have told — several times. that is why, as i have told you, i was surprised when later i_ have told you, i was surprised when later i heard — have told you, i was surprised when later i heard that chris colling at eat out — later i heard that chris colling at eat out to — later i heard that chris colling at eat out to help the virus. and i was taking _ eat out to help the virus. and i was taking aback. —— chris calling it eat out— taking aback. —— chris calling it eat out to _ taking aback. —— chris calling it eat out to help the virus. taking aback. -- chris calling it eat out to help the virus. there was a constant — eat out to help the virus. there was a constant debate _ eat out to help the virus. there was a constant debate is _ eat out to help the virus. there was a constant debate is in _ eat out to help the virus. there was a constant debate is in order- eat out to help the virus. there was a constant debate is in order to i a constant debate is in order to whether or not isolate proper self isolation, in order to ensure heightened compliance with the guidance and the regulations, further enforcement was required or whether or not, or perhaps alongside it, additionalfinancial support it, additional financial support should be it, additionalfinancial support should be provided. it was an obvious debate that had to be had. did you have a position in relation to whether or not the cure for lack of compliance or other difficulties with self isolation should be greater enforcement, tougher enforcement and biggerfines, orfor the setting up of a more generous system for financial support for those who were self isolating. do you recall? we those who were self isolating. do you recall?— those who were self isolating. do ou recall? ~ , ., , you recall? we did both will stop we instituted a compensation _ you recall? we did both will stop we instituted a compensation scheme l you recall? we did both will stop we. instituted a compensation scheme for payments _ instituted a compensation scheme for payments for those who were self isolating — payments for those who were self isolating from september, i think of about— isolating from september, i think of about £500, but i also took the view that if_ about £500, but i also took the view that if we _ about £500, but i also took the view that if we were going to have a system — that if we were going to have a system of _ that if we were going to have a system of enforcement, then it needed — system of enforcement, then it needed to be pretty firm. do you recall whether _ needed to be pretty firm. do you recall whether or _ needed to be pretty firm. do you recall whether or not _ needed to be pretty firm. do you recall whether or not the - needed to be pretty firm. do you i recall whether or not the amount needed to be pretty firm. do you - recall whether or not the amount for the payment went up between march 2020 and september? was there any increase before september, do you recall? i increase before september, do you recall? , ., , ., , recall? i remember the top fine was £10,000. indeed. _ recall? i remember the top fine was £10,000. indeed. you _ recall? i remember the top fine was £10,000. indeed. you declared - recall? i remember the top fine was £10,000. indeed. you declared anyi £10,000. indeed. you declared any handwritten — £10,000. indeed. you declared any handwritten message, _ £10,000. indeed. you declared any handwritten message, a _ £10,000. indeed. you declared any| handwritten message, a handwritten note on a box note given to you on the 30th of august, i agree with the openings, but the overriding message you sent in capital letters should be about tougher enforcement and biggerfines. at the be about tougher enforcement and bigger fines. at the same time, it is notable that you in no way suggested that an alternative way, or perhaps a complementary way, might be to increase the amount of payments for self isolation. but might be to increase the amount of payments for self isolation.- payments for self isolation. but we did, as i payments for self isolation. but we did. as i have _ payments for self isolation. but we did, as i have just _ payments for self isolation. but we did, as i have just said, _ payments for self isolation. but we did, as i have just said, increase i did, as i have just said, increase payments— did, as i have just said, increase payments for self isolation. that was not a suggestion _ payments for self isolation. “matt was not a suggestion that she made at this time, although it came in later as you rightly say in september. your position was, it would appear, enforcement is the only way to go. would appear, enforcement is the only way to go— only way to go. that is obviously not uuite only way to go. that is obviously not quite right — only way to go. that is obviously not quite right because - only way to go. that is obviously not quite right because we - only way to go. that is obviously not quite right because we did i only way to go. that is obviously i not quite right because we did give quite _ not quite right because we did give quite generous payments for self isolation — quite generous payments for self isolation. i think the concern that we had _ isolation. i think the concern that we had was — isolation. i think the concern that we had was that there could be difficulties, complications, abuse of any— difficulties, complications, abuse of any system of payments. we were already— of any system of payments. we were already spending, as everybody knows, — already spending, as everybody knows, very considerable sums in support— knows, very considerable sums in support of— knows, very considerable sums in support of all kinds. so there were anxieties _ support of all kinds. so there were anxieties about some of the implications of compensation system. but because it was so important to id but because it was so important to go with— but because it was so important to go with self isolation, to encourage people _ go with self isolation, to encourage people and to help people who needed support, _ people and to help people who needed support, we did go for the £500 payments. gn support, we did go for the £500 -a ments. support, we did go for the £500 payments— support, we did go for the £500 -a ments. ., ., , ., payments. on the regulations and uuidance payments. on the regulations and guidance themselves, _ payments. on the regulations and guidance themselves, evidence i payments. on the regulations and. guidance themselves, evidence has been received by the inquiry from the former home secretary, dean priti patel, that in her opinion there was a high degree of confusion around the regulations, as well as their details. and the inquiry has seen a diary entry in to patrick vallance's notes where you exclaim in frustration, but plainly perhaps not to be taken too seriously, "who made these stupid rules?" was that against that context, mrjohnson, to what extent did your advisers and officials come to you over the summer and the autumn of 2020 and say, there really is a distinction about the problem of the efficacy and workability of the regulations? they are very difficult to understand and giving rise to a significant degree of confusion. did that debate ever take place? taste significant degree of confusion. did that debate ever take place? we did that debate ever take place? we did t to make that debate ever take place? we did try to make the _ that debate ever take place? we did try to make the rules _ that debate ever take place? we did try to make the rules as _ that debate ever take place? we did try to make the rules as simple - that debate ever take place? we did try to make the rules as simple as i try to make the rules as simple as we could — try to make the rules as simple as we could. the problem was the effort didm _ we could. the problem was the effort didm to— we could. the problem was the effort didm to get— we could. the problem was the effort did... to get people to self—isolate, to avoid contact because _ self—isolate, to avoid contact because of the complexities of human life became extremely complicated. i think we _ life became extremely complicated. i think we really need, you know, for the future _ think we really need, you know, for the future to — think we really need, you know, for the future to think about how we do it again _ the future to think about how we do it again. because, yes, it was very difficult _ it again. because, yes, it was very difficult to — it again. because, yes, it was very difficult to enforce. i do have a great _ difficult to enforce. i do have a great deal— difficult to enforce. i do have a great deal of sympathy for those, the police, those who were charged with enforcing it because it change very often — with enforcing it because it change very often. i think there were 60 separate — very often. i think there were 60 separate changes. the complexities for the _ separate changes. the complexities for the public to understand were very great — for the public to understand were very great-— for the public to understand were ve areat. . i. ., ., very great. have you thought about how it might _ very great. have you thought about how it might be _ very great. have you thought about how it might be done _ very great. have you thought about how it might be done differently i how it might be done differently next time in terms of the promulgation of the legal superstructure? i promulgation of the legal superstructure?— promulgation of the legal superstructure? promulgation of the legal suerstructure? ~ . ., , superstructure? i think clearly it would be a _ superstructure? i think clearly it would be a matter— superstructure? i think clearly it would be a matter for— superstructure? i think clearly it would be a matter for the - superstructure? i think clearly it i would be a matter for the inquiry. i think— would be a matter for the inquiry. i think that _ would be a matter for the inquiry. i think that there needs to be a great deal of— think that there needs to be a great deal of reflection about the simplifying the whole approach, and seeing _ simplifying the whole approach, and seeing what we can do to rely more on common— seeing what we can do to rely more on common sense and less on regulation _ on common sense and less on regulation and legislation. but there — regulation and legislation. but there may be limits to that. i am not suggesting there is an easy answer— not suggesting there is an easy answer because the reason, fundamentally, in the uk... and i say this— fundamentally, in the uk... and i say this to — fundamentally, in the uk... and i say this to all the libertarians, why you — say this to all the libertarians, why you need regulation is because ultimately— why you need regulation is because ultimately people want to see everybody being obliged to obey the same set _ everybody being obliged to obey the same set of rules and they want their— same set of rules and they want their neighbours to do what they are doing _ their neighbours to do what they are doing lt— their neighbours to do what they are doinu. , , ., ., , , doing. it must be noted that despite our doing. it must be noted that despite your declared _ doing. it must be noted that despite your declared libertarian _ your declared libertarian tendencies, your own message to your advisers, as we see from that document, was biggerfines, more enforcement, a heavier hand. here document, was bigger fines, more enforcement, a heavier hand. here is the picture- — enforcement, a heavier hand. here is the picture- i— enforcement, a heavier hand. here is the picture. i was— enforcement, a heavier hand. here is the picture. i was very _ enforcement, a heavier hand. here is the picture. i was very concerned. - enforcement, a heavier hand. here is the picture. i was very concerned. i. the picture. i was very concerned. i knew— the picture. i was very concerned. i knew that — the picture. i was very concerned. i knew that we were basically in remission— knew that we were basically in remission as we came out of the first lockdown. the reason i went for things— first lockdown. the reason i went for things like eat out to help out because _ for things like eat out to help out because i— for things like eat out to help out because i thought it was within the budget— because i thought it was within the budget of— because i thought it was within the budget of risk. but i know that we are going — budget of risk. but i know that we are going to face another wave, and i are going to face another wave, and i really— are going to face another wave, and i really want — are going to face another wave, and i really want people, if we are going — i really want people, if we are going to — i really want people, if we are going to avoid tougher measures, we need people to be the existing structures. it need people to be the existing structures— need people to be the existing structures. ., , ., , ., , ., , ., structures. it was obvious to you, and we will _ structures. it was obvious to you, and we will look _ structures. it was obvious to you, and we will look at _ structures. it was obvious to you, and we will look at a _ structures. it was obvious to you, and we will look at a whatsapp i structures. it was obvious to you, and we will look at a whatsapp in structures. it was obvious to you, i and we will look at a whatsapp in a moment, by the end ofjuly that the united kingdom would be hit by a second wave. that was epidemiologically taken for granted in terms of the examination of this viral pandemic stop we will have 48399, page 25, you say it is completely obvious we are about to be hit by a second wave. it is about halfway down, halfway down the page. 81048. looking at spain and france, remembering march, it is completely obvious we are about to be hit by a second wave. on page 32, a month later, 31st of august, in the same whatsapp group, you see, "we have seen the wave coming for miles, so we should be ready." thank you. it is obvious that the government was concerned in the summer of 2020 with, as you say, the summer of 2020 with, as you say, the prospect of being hit by a second wave. did you therefore give consideration to the possibility of putting into place a formal system of segmentation? the inquiry has heard evidence how, in august and september, the covid task force considered whether or not it might be possible in advance of the impact of the second wave to consider a formal system of segmentation for the elderly. do you recall that debate? i the elderly. do you recall that debate? . ., , ., the elderly. do you recall that debate? . . , ., ~' the elderly. do you recall that debate? . ., , ., ~ ., debate? i certainly do. i think that we were looking _ debate? i certainly do. i think that we were looking at _ debate? i certainly do. i think that we were looking at all _ debate? i certainly do. i think that we were looking at all sorts - debate? i certainly do. i think that we were looking at all sorts of- we were looking at all sorts of different — we were looking at all sorts of different considerations. there were a number of — different considerations. there were a number of meetings _ different considerations. there were a number of meetings with - different considerations. there were a number of meetings with the - different considerations. there were | a number of meetings with the covid task force. you see in the minutes of the meeting of the strategy committee in september, "a plan should be considered on segmentation for the population to enable a portion of the population to continue to live their lives as normal." do you know now, can you recall why the proposals on segmentation were either impractical or not possible to be taken further? a lot of people... i kept having to explain _ a lot of people... i kept having to explain this— a lot of people... i kept having to explain this to people. intuitively, it sounds— explain this to people. intuitively, it sounds like a very reasonable thing _ it sounds like a very reasonable thing to— it sounds like a very reasonable thing to do, to protect those who are going — thing to do, to protect those who are going to be most vulnerable, principally — are going to be most vulnerable, principally the elderly and those with chronic conditions. the trouble is that— with chronic conditions. the trouble is that when— with chronic conditions. the trouble is that when the r start circulating above _ is that when the r start circulating above a _ is that when the r start circulating above a certain rate, the velocity of transmission of the disease becomes— of transmission of the disease becomes so extreme that it just breaks— becomes so extreme that it just breaks the segregation that you have tried to _ breaks the segregation that you have tried to impose. that vulnerable population, a percentage of them, were _ population, a percentage of them, were inevitably going to get the disease — were inevitably going to get the disease. a small percentage of a very large — disease. a small percentage of a very large number is a very large number, — very large number is a very large number, as— very large number is a very large number, as you if very large number is a very large number. as you— number, as you if we look at the whatsapp _ number, as you if we look at the whatsapp group _ number, as you if we look at the whatsapp group for _ number, as you if we look at the whatsapp group for august, - number, as you if we look at the l whatsapp group for august, page number, as you if we look at the - whatsapp group for august, page 28. you entered into a debate with sir chris whitty and sir patrick vallance about the merits of giving the elderly a choice. you see, in effect, why not give the over 65s a choice. they can decide whether or not to enter into spontaneous self—preservation and keep themselves to themselves, or run the risk of hugging their grandchildren and engaging fully in society. you put that position to sir chris whitty, and he says in the middle of the page, starting at 720 2:49pm, i agree it is entirely reasonable at an individual level. the agree it is entirely reasonable at an individual level.— an individual level. the second paragraph- _ an individual level. the second paragraph. indeed. _ an individual level. the second paragraph. indeed. he - an individual level. the second paragraph. indeed. he says, i an individual level. the second - paragraph. indeed. he says, people can rashly make _ paragraph. indeed. he says, people can rashly make an _ paragraph. indeed. he says, people can rashly make an informed - paragraph. indeed. he says, people can rashly make an informed choice | can rashly make an informed choice whether the individual will take a small increased risk of dying by hugging their grandchildren or going clubbing, perhaps not the same people hugging their grandchildren and going clubbing, but at the population level the government is under an obligation to ensure that the epidemiological line is held, so that the r rate does not go back above one. was that the nub of the problem? above one. was that the nub of the roblem? ., , , above one. was that the nub of the roblem? . , , ., problem? that is it. chris, in that second paragraph, _ problem? that is it. chris, in that second paragraph, is— problem? that is it. chris, in that second paragraph, is making - problem? that is it. chris, in that second paragraph, is making the | second paragraph, is making the essential— second paragraph, is making the essential point, that even if you have _ essential point, that even if you have elected to be shielded or even if the _ have elected to be shielded or even if the government is trying to shield — if the government is trying to shield this segment of the population, it is not going to work because _ population, it is not going to work because the infectiousness is too great _ do you think that is why perhaps the segmentation debate