this is bbc news. now on bbc news, covid inquiry: life and death decisions. i have got an appalling feeling that i am in one of those historic catastrophes. jeers. the covid inquiry has seen revelations... this matters massively to people in this country. ..interruptions... mr gove, i ask the questions here, please. ..and accusations... you call ministers morons. i'm sorry, if you don't sit down i will ask the ushers to get you to leave. there was powerful testimony from the most senior politicians in charge, along with officials and scientists advising them. the lockdown and restrictions might be over, but for many, life will never be the same. how'd you get the big calls right when we had one of the highest rates of death within western europe or in any of the big economies? i am deeply sorry for the pain and the loss and the suffering of those victims. the whole inquiry is set to last for years and is broken down into different parts. coming up are the key moments from part two, the life and death decisions of those in charge. could you commence your evidence, please, by giving us your full name? alexander boris de pfeffeljohnson. inevitably we got some things wrong. i think we were doing our best at the time. given what we knew, given the information i had available to me at the time, i think we did our level best. before it even got going, the inquiry asked witnesses to hand over their e—mails, diaries and whatsapp messages. do you know why your phone was missing those 5000 odd whatsapps? i don't know the exact reason, but it looks as though it is something to do with the app going down and then coming up again. you don't now have access to any of the whatsapp messages that you did send during the time of the crisis, do you? no, i don't. i have changed my phone multiple times over the l past few years and as that has happened, the messages- have not come across. as you said, i am not a prolific use of whatsapp in the - first instance. those messages help to paint a picture of how downing street was operating at the time. it was definitely a toxic culture. it is difficult to get people to march to the sound of gunfire if you shoot them in the back. texts of the prime initial�*s chief adviser, dominic cummings, were read out. they often came with a warning. due in large part to your own whatsapp messages, mr cummings, we're going to have to course in our language i apologise. you called ministers, useless expletive morons in e—mails and whatsapp messages to your professional colleagues. do you feel that you express your views too trenchantly, that your opinion of ministers and the cabinet overstated your position? no, i would say, if anything, it understated the position, as events showed in 2020. the top female civil servant in whitehall, helen macnamara, was the target of some of the strongest language. i don't care how it is done, but that woman must be out of our hair. i was not misogynistic. i agree that my language is deplorable, but as you can see for yourself, i deployed the same or worse language about the prime minister, secretarys of state and other people. the thing is, mr cummings, having his messages, it is not, it is horrible to read, but it is both surprising and not surprising to me and i don't know which is worse. borisjohnson was also questioned directly about the workplace culture in downing street. i knew that some people were difficult. i didn't know how difficult they were, clearly. but i thought it was better, on the whole, for the country to have a disputatious culture in number ten and one that was quietly acquiescent. former health secretary matt hancock also came in for a fair bit of criticism. i think he had a habit of saying things which he didn't have a basis for and he would say them to enthusiastically too early, without the evidence to back them up and then have to backtrack from them days later. i don't know to what extent that was sort of overenthusiasm, versus deliberate. what was said in a meeting as actually being under control or going to be delivered or something that was fine but then subsequently a matter of days sometimes, or sometimes weeks later, we would discover that that was not in fact the case. how could important government advisors and officials have concluded that the secretary of state for health was a liar? i was not. you will note that there is no evidence from anybody who i worked with in the department or the health system who supported that, those false allegations. myjudgment was that matt was, on the whole, doing _ a good job in very difficult - circumstances and there was no advantage in moving him, i as i was being urged to do. that was my judgment. flights from china into the uk will be monitored amid concerns about the spread of a new virus. let's turn, then, to the events of that first year. it is the start of 2020 and the first report of a new virus start emerging in china. prime minister you concerned about the virus coming to the united kingdom? ijust know how notoriously difficult to control respiratory viruses are. i knew by this stage this appeared to be a novel coronavirus. just, my general experience told me that i didn't like the look or feel of this. i don't see what i would have done differently at this particular point, but if i had said to him, 0k, what is the evidence on which this is going to be a pandemic and lots of things aren't? he would have said, this just feels like that to me. that is quite a narrow basis on which to make quite big decisions. some of the testimony, though, suggested the virus wasn't seen as a deadly threat, at least to start with. from the middle ofjanuary, we were trying to effectively raise the alarm. we were trying to wake up whitehall to the scale of the problem. i just want to take you back to what you tell us, that mr johnson said, that he wanted to be injected with covid—i9 to demonstrate to the public that it didn't pose a threat. it was before the italian situation had really become apparent to everybody. it was the time when covid was not seen as being the serious disease it subsequently became always seem to be. it was a moment in time. borisjohnson later said he rejected that account. the government warns - against all but essential travel to italy, as the country's coronavirus lockdown comes into effect. - as the virus hit europe, emergency cobra government meetings were held, chaired by mr hancock and not the prime minister. february, towards the end of february, covid was pretty much like a cloud on the horizon, no bigger than a man's hand and you didn't know whether it was going to turn into a typhoon. i look at all this stuff in which we seem to so oblivious with horror. i mean, we should have, we should have twigged. the government was still trying to isolate anyone infected and trace their contracts. by march, the government had switched to a mitigation strategy. wash your hands to the national anthem. the advice was wash your hands, work from home, if possible, and self—isolate if you have symptoms. the idea? to slow the spread of the virus and keep infections at a level the nhs could cope with. you refer to the fact that the prime minister at this stage was stressing the importance of not overreacting in the response. he was worried about the government being swept up in a sort of media hysteria and overreacting and causing more harm. i was in a hospital the other night where i think there were actually a few coronavirus patients and i should hands with everybody, you will be pleased to know. i shouldn't have done that, in retrospect. i should have been more precautionary. but i wanted to, i wanted to be encouraging to people. it was clear, though, that the virus was spreading quicker than many scientists expected, driven by tourists coming back from europe. i was concerned that the people who were being asked to make these very consequential decisions that were coming our way very fast may not have got their heads around what it would feel like to have three quarters of the population infected and 1% of them die. sporting events went ahead, life continued. by the middle of march, though, some officials were very concerned. i have come through here to the prime minister's office to tell you all we are absolutel i think this country is heading for a disaster. i think we are going to kill thousands of people. is it right that that is an accurate account? yes. it is very striking. yes. no doubt, you can still remember that moment of realisation? yes, it was horrible. from this evening, i must give the british people a very simple instruction. you must stay at home. perhaps the most dramatic moment of the whole pandemic, a full mandatory lockdown, was announced on the 23rd of march across the whole uk. new considered the argument against lockdown or...? i did, i mean, i didn't... i am afraid to say at that stage i gave it pretty short shrift because i thought that myjob was to protect human life. with hindsight, officials and scientists said that key decision to lockdown could have come earlier, though it was a difficult balancing act at the time. the risk of going to early, in which case you get all the damages of going back to early, in which case you get all the damages from the impact of the epidemic or the risk of going too late, which case you get all the problems of the pandemic running away, my view is with hindsight we went bit too late on the first wave. i defend my actions at the time, knowing what we did, but with hindsight that is the moment we should have done it, three weeks earlier and it would have — saved many, many lives. matt hancock claimed he had told borisjohnson earlier on the 13th of march, telling him to lockdown. your book says, the account that follows has been meticulously pieced together from my formal papers, notes, voice memos, communications, in 555 pages, all the relevant, important events, as you saw it, concerning the coronavirus response, but there is no reference to you telling the prime minister to call for an immediate lockdown on the 13th of march. how sure are you that you told the prime minister he had to call for an immediate lockdown in a call on the 13th of march? i can remember it and it came to light in looking forward to this inquiry. ministers, including prime minister rishi sunak, then the chancellor, said decisions at the time were being guided by a group of scientists known as sage. advice was put to the government, to the prime minister from sage and advice was followed pretty much imminently, on the same day, in most cases, if not all cases. during that period the advice changed from sage, during that period, but when the advice changed the government acted. but by the end of march, the virus was spreading through downing street itself. i have taken a test. that has come out positive. i knew from that experience what an appalling disease this is. i had absolutely no personal doubt about that, from march onwards. the inquiry heard there was frustration from some about how long it took the people in charge to make decisions, especially the prime minister. i think i am right in saying that the prime minister at the time gave up science when he was 15. and i think he would be the first to admit it wasn't his forte and that he did struggle with some of the concepts and we didn't forte and that he did struggle with some of the concepts and we did need to repeat them often stop i think what will probably be clear in covid, it was the wrong crisis for this prime minister skill set? what do you mean by the wrong crisis for this prime minister skill set? could be you straightforward english, mr kane? _ i think he is somebody who would often delay making decisions, would often seek counsel from multiple sources and change his mind on issues. mrjohnson, though, came out fighting and defended his approach. i've got the chancellor of the exchequer with me, saying that there is a risk to the uk bond markets and our ability to raise sovereign debt. this matters massively to people in this country. it matters to the livelihoods of people up and down the land. i have to go through the arguments. the fact that there was debate and that people were passionate about it and they had to different points of view is, a, unsurprising and b, good because it would be worse if you are having this conversation and all the commentary was, well, there was no debate about any of this whatsoever, it was alljust signed off, straight forward, someone put a piece of paper, someone checked and that was the last we heard of it, frankly i think that would have been worse. over the late spring of 2020, the country had come gingerly out of lockdown. you can come to town, but you just have to be cautious. that summer, the eat out to help 0ut scheme was launched, offering discounts in cafes and restaurants. were you consulted on that scheme? absolutely not, the first i heard about it was, i think, on the tv. you are saying you are not sure whether it was discussed with them and you are surprised it wasn't? the reason i said that in my statement is that i think frankly i issued it must have been discussed with them and i... i am perplexed. scientists told the inquiry they had real concerns about that scheme. we will pay you to go into an environment with people from other households and mix in an indoor environment. and that is a completely opposite public health message. i don't want to blame eat out to help out for the second wave because that is not the case, but the optics of it were terrible. hospitality had been deemed to be safe to reopen with a considerable, as i said, hundreds of pages of guidance, changes in practice and it had been recommended by think tanks and had been done by countries elsewhere. this was a very reasonable, sensible policy intervention to help safeguard those jobs in that safe reopening. that was my view. i didn't believe that it was a risk. i believed that it was the right thing to do, but if others are suggesting that they didn't, they had ample opportunity to raise those concerns in forums where i was or prime minister or others were and they didn't. that period of calm over the summer didn't last long. by september, schools and universities had returned and cases were rising. it was very frustrating for us to have been asked to advise the government and to advise the government that the autumn would be difficult and that that difficulty would manifest as rising numbers of infections. and we had this astonishingly good ability to watch that happening, so we said, you should do something now. but nothing happened. the treasury and rishi sunak were very concerned about the impact on the economy and rejected the idea of a mini lockdown or circuit breaker, backed by many scientists. some officials in number ten described the treasury as the pro—death squad. i do not think it is a fair characterisation on the incredibly hard—working people that i was lucky to be supported by at the treasury, who worked extremely hard throughout the entire period and, as you kindly alluded to earlier, are widely considered to have done something that no one had thought possible that saved millions of people's livelihoods. it was claimed mrjohnson said at times he was willing to let infections rise to protect the economy. the prime minister meeting begins to argue for letting it rip, saying yes, there will be more casualties, but so be it? they have had a good innings. notes from the private diary of sir patrick vallance were read out. was your position, mrjohnson, that in light of your views secretly held about people dying, having reached their time anyway, that you were obliged to reject the advice of your advisors that there be a circuit breaker? no. that there be no national lockdown at the last possible moment... no, no. and that you try a tier system? no, so, the implication that you are trying to draw from those conversations is completely wrong. and my position was that we had to save human life at all ages. instead, lighter touch restrictions were introduced in england. the rule of six, an earlier closing time for pubs and there would be heavy fines for breaking the rules. did you think that a new flat fine of £10,000 was proportionate? it was very high. it wasjust... was it proportionate, in light of the civil libertarian issues? the answer is no. different regional restrictions, known as tiers, were introduced. every mp argued that their area shouldn't be in a higher tier, they should be in a lower tier. so everyone is arguing to do things just a little bit less than they should to do. local mayors said they were often sidelined in decision making. i will never forget that sort of feeling of lack of power, lack of influence, not knowing what is happening in our city. but covid cases kept rising and on the 5th of november, england went into a national lockdown for the second time. 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. if you look at what we actually did, we went into lockdown as soon as we could the first time round and we sensibly went for a regional approach when the disease picked up again, and then again went into lockdown. 2020 will be for the history books. those leading the country reflected on the significance of what happened. we have to be realistic about 2020. the whole year, that whole tragic, tragic year. we did lockdown. but then it bounced back. the hearing was shown a film featuring those most affected by covid. there are so many unanswered questions. we need answers. hopefully, they will learn from it, so... | because i wouldn't i wish this on anybody. those bereaved families wanted more opportunity to have their voices heard, often standing outside in protest. i want to leave this feeling like the government did the best that they possibly could, and not feeling like, what if? and if things had been different, my mum could still be here. and that is not how i am feeling now. and at times, making themselves heard inside the inquiry itself. ..how sorry i am for the pain and the loss and the suffering... sit down, please stop... ..of the covid victims... please sit down. please sit down or i am afraid you will have to leave the hearing room. i'm sorry, if you don't sit down, i will ask the ushers to get you to leave. for relatives, hearing more details of covid rule—breaking in government will have been particularly hard. i continue to regret very much what happened, but i really want to emphasise, if you talk about the impression, the version of events that has entered the popular consciousness about what is supposed to have happened in downing street is a million miles from the reality of what actually happened in numberio. helen macnamara, who was herself laterfined in the partygate scandal, painted a wider picture of dysfunction. i would find it hard to pick one day when the regulations were followed properly inside that building. and i know that because, as i have said in my statement, there was one meeting where we absolutely adhered to the guidance to the letter and that was the cabinet meeting, and everybody moaned about it. what did we learn, then, from this part of the inquiry? the personalities in charge and a rousing downing street grabbed headlines. but at the centre of it all was a difficult balancing act. 0n the one hand, officials were trying to contain the virus, while on the other trying to protect jobs and the economy. all this while not knowing when or even if a vaccine would ever come along. thank you. it will now be up to baroness hallett to decide if the government has got that right and what we can learn for the future. her verdict on this crucial second part of the inquiry is due around the end of 202a. we are now taking you to a press conference held by the police relating to the boy, alex batty who went missing for six years and was discovered in france. it went missing for six years and was discovered in france.— discovered in france. it gives me ureat discovered in france. it gives me great pleasure — discovered in france. it gives me great pleasure to _ discovered in france. it gives me great pleasure to say _ discovered in france. it gives me great pleasure to say alex - discovered in france. it gives me great pleasure to say alex has i discovered in france. it gives me l great pleasure to say alex has now made his safe return back to the uk after six years. earlier today, alex met with a family member alongside greater manchester police officers at toulouse airport before heading back to the uk. this moment was undoubtedly huge for him and his loved ones. we are glad that they have been able to see each other again after all this time. before being found by a member of the public close to toulouse on the evening of wednesday the 13th of december 2023, alex had been missing since 2017. we are aware the french authorities disclosed detailed information yesterday during their press conference relating to what alex may have been doing and where he has been during his years missing. greater manchester police have yet to inform any formal statement from alex and therefore we cannot comment at this time. speaking with him at a pace that feels comfortable to him will ultimately determine how this case has progressed and whether there is a criminal investigation to ensure you. i'll continue to focus is supporting alex and his family in partnership with other local agencies to ensure that they are safe, their well—being is looked after and his reintegration with society is as easy as possible. we are yet to fully establish the circumstances surrounding his disappearance, but no matter what, understand that this may be an overwhelming process. he may now be six years older than when he went missing, but he is still a young person. i will continue to ask for the community and media support in granting alex and his family privacy as they move forward. thank you. studio: clearly the greater manchester police being fairly tight—lipped about the circumstances surrounding the return of alex batty, the 17—year—old who has been missing for six years. this appeared on a family holiday to spain with his mother and grandfather. he was found on wednesday morning by a motorist who saw him walking near toulouse and has subsequently then return to the uk. the police are very keen to emphasise that alex batty will be encouraged to talk at a pace that is comfortable to him, rather than be encouraged to divulge details of his whereabouts, not his whereabouts but the circumstances of him staying within france and his travels during that time. he originally went to spain, to the south of spain and then eventually move to the pyrenees. and the circumstances surrounding his mother's and grandfather's decision to do that. she was not a legal guardian of alex batty, which is a very important point. the police officer opening up the possibility that there may be a criminal investigation, but that depends on information given by alex batty. you are watching bbc news. stay with us. live from london. this is bbc news. families of israeli hostages hold a rally in tel aviv to urge the government to do more to release them. benjamin netanyahu says military pressure will free them, but hints of possible talks. translation: continued military pressure will bring _ to the release of all the hostages and the assumption of entering negotiations is based on this pressure. without this pressure, we have nothing. the funeral is held for an aljazeera camera operator who has been killed in gaza by an israeli air strike. the missing british boy who was found in france six years after he went missing has arrived in the uk. luton�*s premier league football match at bournemouth is abandoned after their captain tom lockyer collapses on the pitch. he is in a stable condition. pop star olly alexander will represent the united kingdom at next year's eurovision song contest in sweden.