Boris Johnson stated that he chose not to involve himself with the devolved administrations during the pandemic due to political motivations. This was discussed during the live UK Covid inquiry.

Menon inquires about the reasoning behind England’s decision to enforce stricter measures compared to Scotland and Wales, specifically in regards to exempting young children from certain restrictions. Johnson responds by stating that the UK government’s goal was to decrease the spread of the virus.

The investigation has not found any proof that the methods used by the Scottish and Welsh governments were riskier than those implemented by the UK government in England.

Rajiv Menon KC, representing multiple children’s rights organizations, is currently discussing with Johnson. He is questioning Johnson’s statement that schools would be the final establishments to close and the first to reopen, in light of the fact that “pubs and hairdressers” were allowed to open earlier.

Johnson stated that the government considered extending the school year after schools were able to reopen. However, ministers believed it was more logical to follow the traditional school calendar and close for the summer, then reopen at the regular time.

Anthony Metzer, a member of KC, is inquiring Johnson about long Covid groups. He is being asked if he was given any guidance on long Covid, similar to his former advisor Dominic Cummings and former health secretary Matt Hancock.

He was told that despite not having any proof to back up his doubts, and even being urged by his advisors and peers to recognize it, Johnson still did not believe it was a significant issue for a significant period of time.

Johnson clarified that he was acknowledging the issue, but was interested in seeing proof of its severity. When questioned about his statement deeming the consequences of long Covid as “nonsense,” he was prompted to explain why he did not request the NIHR report that addressed the topic.

Johnson argues that he did indeed request for research and eventually came across evidence on long Covid. However, he is ultimately forced to admit that he never requested to see the NIHR report.

Johnson asserts that the disparity in the impact of the pandemic on people of color was not due to any medical reasons. He believes it was a result of their increased exposure to risk, likely due to their higher likelihood of being in frontline positions.

Thomas helped him stand up and inquired if he was familiar with the concept of “institutional racism in the NHS” that was mentioned by former health secretary Matt Hancock and outlined in a Public Health England report. He asks the prime minister to confirm that as the head of government, he was not aware of this report.

Johnson informs the investigation that the proof he witnessed did not substantiate that determination.

Leslie Thomas KC is now putting questions to Johnson on behalf of the Federation of Ethnic Minority Healthcare Organisations (FEMHO). He asks the former prime minister if he agrees it’s important to acknowledge the sacrifice of healthcare workers – especially those from minority ethnic backgrounds – as well as whether he owes them a personal debt after his own hospitalisations. Johnson agrees on both counts.

Thomas inquires Johnson about Patrick Vallance’s perspective that the healthcare disparities observed during the pandemic were easily predictable, and that the pandemic worsened pre-existing inequalities. In light of this, why did the government fail to take action in order to lessen the potential adverse impact of the pandemic on disadvantaged and minority communities, Thomas questions?

Johnson informed the investigation that he was cautioned from the beginning that implementing lockdowns would disproportionately affect individuals from underprivileged communities. He implies that this was a contributing factor to his hesitance in enforcing a lockdown.

Johnson was requested to explain the specific actions taken by his government to safeguard these individuals. He stated that prior to implementing the initial nationwide lockdown, the government was not aware of the varying impacts the virus would have on different groups.

Thomas states that he inquired about particular protective measures before attempting to move forward. However, Johnson interrupts, explaining that implementing measures was challenging until the causes of the disparities were identified.

The investigation has been ongoing for approximately 10 minutes.

When asked if he could have been more specific about which messages applied to which regions of the UK, Johnson acknowledges that he could have done so, but states that it may not have been beneficial. He maintains that he believes it would have caused confusion for many individuals.

Johnson is reminded of his belief that government communication is the most crucial resource available. He is then shown a report which reveals that government officials frequently use the term “this country” to refer to England, causing potential confusion among citizens in other parts of the UK, as well as in England.

Johnson clarified at times that certain measures only applied to England. He also stated that government ministers should not be criticized for using common language.

The question posed is whether the UK government neglected to utilize its most crucial resource. In response, Johnson states that, in fact, it was remarkable how effectively ministers were able to clarify intricate regulations.

The investigation now turns to inquiries from Claire Mitchell KC, who is representing the Scottish Covid Bereaved group. She inquires about Johnson’s hesitance to communicate with the former Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, at the beginning of the pandemic. This was reportedly due to a personal animosity towards her, as stated by one of Johnson’s closest aides.

The ex-prime minister of the UK refutes this claim. However, he acknowledges that there was a certain level of back-and-forth between him and the Scottish National Party in terms of politics.

Was this a contributing factor to his limited meetings with Scottish government officials? Johnson maintains that his interactions with Sturgeon were strictly professional and reiterates that delegating to Gove would have alleviated some of the pressure in the discussions.

Once more, he expresses concern about individuals who may not support him politically, but still feel compelled to criticize the government.

Bethan Harris, representing Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru, is currently speaking to Johnson. The ex-prime minister denies her claim that he did not properly communicate and collaborate with representatives from all four countries of the UK during the pandemic.

Johnson stated that he believed Michael Gove, who was then the cabinet secretary, was effectively managing relations with the Welsh first minister’s proposal about a “vacuum” in direct engagement with No 10.

He was also reminded that, according to his own written statement, he expressed his belief that it was inappropriate for the UK prime minister to regularly meet with other ministers from devolved administrations. Does he not believe that decisions should have been solely based on their effectiveness in combating Covid, rather than their appearance?

Johnson states that he thinks Gove was the most suitable person to handle discussions with the leaders of the devolved administrations during the inquiry.

Harris continues to question him. Johnson implies that he was wary of the devolved administration leaders using meetings to surpass him politically. He informs Harris:

My considerations were – to be absolutely frank with the inquiry – the risk of pointless political friction and grandstanding because of the well-known opposition of some of the [devolved administrations] to the government – and also to avoid unnecessary leaks.

I believed that the best way to decrease disagreement and conflicts – although you may disagree with my opinion – was to lower the intensity and have productive discussions between the devolved administrations and Michael Gove, who was then the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster… and overall, I believe it was very successful.

Johnson was challenged by Campbell for attempting to represent all four nations of the UK, which resulted in limiting the ability of local authorities to customize their communication regarding Covid regulations within their respective regions.

Johnson acknowledges that there may have been confusion regarding the UK government’s messaging, as some individuals struggled to comprehend the varying measures implemented in different regions. However, he denies the notion that his government hindered clear communication at a local level.

The investigation has resumed, and Johnson is now answering inquiries from Brenda Campbell, representing the Northern Ireland Bereaved Families for Justice campaign.

She inquires if he comprehends the pain experienced by those who were not given the chance to bid farewell to their dear ones due to the same individuals who were making the rules breaking them. The ex-prime minister confirms that he does indeed understand.

Campbell inquires about the reason behind the occurrence of the party at No 10 on December 18, 2020. Johnson responds by stating that he has attempted to clarify why those in Downing Street, who were putting in a lot of effort, thought they were following the guidelines at the time. He acknowledges Campbell’s perspective.

The speaker inquires if he could have taken additional measures to prevent the “gatherings, Partygate, wine and cheese parties, secret Santas, and Zoom quizzes”. Johnson attempts to avoid the question by stating he was not aware of the specific event mentioned. However, Campbell clarifies that her question was not about that event. She reiterates if he could have done more to prevent it.

“Based on my understanding of the situation at the time, my response would have been negative,” he states. “However, in retrospect, it may have been more appropriate to give a general reminder to everyone to be cautious of following the rules and being aware of how their actions may be perceived.”

The committee responsible for overseeing Parliament’s privileges has confirmed that Johnson was aware of the press office meeting on December 18, 2020, although his knowledge was limited. This was due to the fact that he was not physically present at the party while he was at No 10. However, he was present at one of the three gatherings that occurred the day before, along with others during the pandemic.

The blog will temporarily cease updates while the inquiry is on hold. In the meantime, here is John Crace’s analysis of Johnson’s performance during the inquiry yesterday.

Here is a recap of what happened this morning:

• According to Johnson, no scientists were present at meetings regarding the “eat out to help out” scheme before its launch. He also stated that he had assumed they were involved in discussions with the Treasury and was surprised that it had been implemented without their knowledge.

• Johnson was shown repeated instances of Patrick Vallance attributing the phrase “let it rip” to the former prime minister in contemporaneous diary entries, despite denials by Johnson he had used the phrase. The inquiry was shown a several dairy entries from Vallance that showed numerous recollections of Johnson using the phrase “let it rip”.

Johnson expressed frustration with the Daily Mail’s criticism of the government’s lockdown measures during discussions with Patrick Vallance and Matt Hancock in September 2020. He emphasized the importance of addressing rising hospital admissions and the implementation of the “rule of six,” stating that it was crucial to not repeat the mistakes made in March.

Weatherby proposed that Johnson was dealing with conflicting pressures from the media. He expressed regret for his previous remarks about the Daily Mail, stating that it was a “remarkable organization”. He also suggested that something they had published may have provoked his frustration regarding the rule of six.

Heather Hallett, the head of the public inquiry on Covid-19, requested that attendees in the gallery refrain from making noise while Boris Johnson was providing his testimony.

Pete Weatherby KC, the representative for the Covid Bereaved Families for Justice, inquired about a section of the ex-prime minister’s statement during the inquiry. In this statement, the former prime minister stated that the “United Kingdom has surpassed most negative forecasts and has successfully emerged from the pandemic, or its most critical stages, ranking low on the international scale for excess mortality.”

Johnson stated that he stands by his point that the UK ranks in the middle according to the tables he has seen.

“This is not in any way to diminish the pain and the suffering of people who lost family members during Covid, it is to reflect the enormous effort made by the whole of the UK to protect the NHS and save lives.”

Weatherby mentioned that the statement brought up the topic of the UK defying pessimistic forecasts and challenged it with solid evidence.

Johnson responded by saying that he did not find the evidence to be convincing, which led to disapproving reactions from the audience.

Hallett apologized and reminded those in the public gallery to remain quiet, regardless of their emotions. This disruption could interfere with the proceedings and live streaming for others trying to follow.

“I apologize for any inconvenience, but this behavior must come to an end.”