UK

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailSuella Braverman has denied trying to oust Rishi Sunak by “spreading poison” in the Tory party, as the PM was left reeling from the shock resignation of Robert Jenrick as immigration minister.Mr Sunak’s premiership has been rocked by the resignation of Ms Braverman’s ally, as the PM failed to appease the Tory right with his plan to “disapply” the UK Human Rights Act in Rwanda deportation cases.Mr Sunak will hold a press conference at 11am this morning as he faces a growing crisis over his Rwanda plans, with No 10 said to be increasingly worried by the number of no-confidence letters being submitted by Tory MPs.In a bruising interview of BBC Radio 4, the sacked home secretary defended her outspoken attacks on Mr Sunak and piled further pressure on him by insisting his Rwanda deportation legislation is doomed to fail. Ms Braverman said she was merely being “honest” and would not “shy away” from make further controversial comments. “If that upsets polite society I am sorry about it,” she said.The right-winger – who has claimed Mr Sunak is “weak” – was challenged by Today programmer interviewer Nick Robinson, who told her: “You are a headline grabber and you do it by spreading poison, even within your own party.”Ms Braverman replied: “Sometimes honesty is uncomfortable, but I’m not going to shy away from telling people how it is and from plain speaking, and if that upsets polite society, then I’m sorry about that.”The tense exchange came as Ms Braverman attacked Mr Sunak’s legislation, saying: “This bill will fail.” She said the reality “is it won’t work and it will not stop the boats.”Former home secretary Suella Braverman said she would not ‘shy away from telling people how it is’ The right of the party furious that the PM chose not to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mr Sunak is reportedly worried by the number of no confidence letters being submitted – amid warnings he could soon face a leadership challenge.In his scathing resignation letter, Mr Jenrick made clear he wanted to bypass the ECHR – calling the bill “a triumph of hope over experience”. And Ms Braverman told the BBC the bill “will allow a merry go round of legal claims and litigation. Ultimately, this bill will fail.”Since being fired, Ms Braverman is widely seen to be plotting a bid to succeed Mr Sunak. On Wednesday she warned the PM that the Tories were heading for “electoral oblivion” if he failied to thwart international human rights law.But she denied speculation she is plotting to bring down Mr Sunak’s government, saying “no one’s talking about leadership or changing leadership”. “That’s nonsense,” she told the BBC.Robert Jenrick said Sunak bill is ‘triumph of hope over experience’ In an extraordinary exchange, Ms Braverman was repeatedly asked whether Mr Sunak was “lying” when he claimed the Rwandan government had threatened to pull out of the deal if Britain breached international treaties. “I don’t know [whether he is lying],” she eventually said.A No 10 accused Ms Braverman of denying reality. A Downing Street source said: “Conservatives need to work within reality. What she wants isn’t available, the Rwandans have said no.”Mr Sunak also fired back at Mr Jenrick – telling him his resignation was based on a “fundamental misunderstanding of the situation”. The PM said Rwanda would “collapse the entire scheme” if he had gone any further.The Tory leader is reportedly ready to threatens to call an election if right-wing MPs threaten to vote against his legislation. The PM is considering making the vital showdown on the legislation next week – with a vote expected on Tuesday – a confidence issue.Convention dictates that the PM would either resign or dissolving parliament and call an election if he loses such a vote. However, No 10 sources have denied that next week’s showdown vote will be treated as a confidence vote in the government.Cabinet minister Chris Heaton-Harris played down the chances of Rishi Sunak facing a vote on his leadership as “very unlikely”. The Northern Ireland secretary told LBC: “I’d say vanishingly small.”Mr Heaton-Harris added: “I don’t think it’s as a big a story as is being made. I don’t like anybody resigning from my party, but when I was Boris Johnson’s chief whip… Pretty much everyone did. Maybe I have a scale of proportion that others don’t have.”Rishi Sunak is under huge pressure from Tory centrists and right-wingers Despite the huge damage done by Mr Jenrick’s resignation, the PM had been warned that he faced an even more damaging rebellion – with the possible resignation of up to 10 moderate ministers – if he had tried to bypass the ECHR.Senior Tory moderate Damian Green, chair of the One Nation group – which boasts support from around 100 MPs – has warned Mr Sunak that he “should think twice before overriding both the ECHR and HRA”.A spokesman for the One Nation group said it welcomed the government’s decision to stick with “international commitments”, and taking legal advice on whether to support the bill.Despite the cautious backing of centrists, senior moderate Tobias Ellwood told Times Radio that he would not support the Rwanda bill if there is “any prospect” of breaking international laws. “We uphold international law. We don’t break it.”Mr Ellwood said the row over Rwanda was “ripping our party in half”. The Tory MP added: “If this infighting continues, it will not just cost us the next general election, it will see our party splinter into two between the centre right and the far right.”The new Sunak bill includes provisions to disapply relevant parts of the Human Rights Act so they cannot be factored into court decisions on deportation cases – but does not try to disapply the ECHR.However, the legislation will ensure UK ministers “retain the decision on whether or not to comply” with interim orders from the European Court of Human Rights – the Strasbourg body that oversees the ECHR.Former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve told BBC Newsnight: “We are watching Tory splits between those MPs that believe in the rule of law and those Conservatives who do not.”The Tory right are also angry at the legislation still allows for individual legal challenges. Mr Heaton-Harris acknowledged that people faced with being sent on a one-way trip to Rwanda will still have some legal routes to challenge the decision.The right-wing Brexiteer Mark Francois said: “If under this legislation those people could continue to appeal and appeal in order to delay being put on a flight, what’s the point of the bill?” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailSenior ToryMPs have called Robert Jenrick’s resignation “deeply worrying” and “very concerning” as the shock announcement Rishi Sunak’s government.The former immigration minister quit on Wednesday after Mr Sunak failed to appease Tory right-wingers with his emergency Rwanda legislation.Mr Jenrick, once a close ally and friend of the PM, issued a scathing resignation letter, accusing Mr Sunak of a “triumph of hope over experience”.And he said the legislation, designed to salvage the government’s Rwanda deportation plan, will not work.Mr Sunak branded the departure “disappointing”, but told Mr Jenrick in a letter he fears it was “based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation”.But former minister Sir Simon Clarke said Mr Jenrick’s departure was “very concerning”.The senior MP said: “Very sorry – and concerned – to see Rob Jenrick leave government this evening.“He understands totally the strength of public feeling on this issue.”Sir Simon said the question now is “simply will this legislation work”.On Wednesday, chairman of the right-wing European Research Group (ERG) of Tory MPs, said: “If the immigration minister, who is a good man, has resigned over this bill that is deeply worrying.”And former minister Andrea Jenkyns, an ardent Boris Johnson loyalist, said Mr Jenrick’s resignation “may be the death knell for Sunak’s leadership”.Tory former attorney general Dominic Grieve said the party is now “seriously split ideologically in a way that I have never seen before”.“What we’re now watching is a split between people who believe in the rule of law, and people who don’t actually believe in the rule of law at all,” he told the BBC.Cabinet minister Chris Heaton-Harris said it was a “great shame” that Mr Jenrick had quit as immigration minister over the Rwanda policy.But he insisted the legislation will work at getting flights off the ground to the east African nation, telling Sky News: “I think it will work.”Labour’s Yvette Cooper said Mr Jenrick’s resignation showed the “starting gun has been fired” on the next Tory leadership election.The shadow home secretary added: “This is the desperate dying days of a party ripping itself apart, clearly totally out of ideas, lost any sense of leadership or direction.”Mr Jenrick’s resignation letter made clear he wanted to bypass the ECHR – revealing that he had been “pushing for the strongest possible” bill that would put “national interests above highly contested interpretations of international law”.It leaves Mr Sunak facing the near-impossible task of winning votes from both the Tory right, who wanted a “full fat” crackdown on the ECHR, and moderate MPs in the “One Nation” group who warn they cannot back legislation that flouts human rights law. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailRishi Sunak’s premiership has been rocked by the resignation of immigration minister Robert Jenrick after the PM failed to appease Tory right-wingers with his emergency Rwanda legislation.Home secretary James Cleverly unveiled a bill in the Commons to “disapply” the UK Human Rights Act in a bid to stop British judges from blocking the deportation of asylum seekers.But the embattled Tory leader has not been able to head off a revolt by MPs on the right of the party, who are furious that the PM chose not to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).In his scathing resignation letter, Mr Jenrick told Mr Sunak he did not believe the new bill “provides us with the best possible chances of success” in getting the Rwanda flights to take off.The hardliner made clear he wanted to bypass the ECHR – revealing that he had been “pushing for the strongest possible” bill that would put “national interests above highly contested interpretations of international law”.In response, Mr Sunak branded the departure “disappointing”, but told Mr Jenrick in a letter he fears it was “based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation”.Rishi Sunak is under pressure from both sides of the divided Tory party Labour said the latest “chaotic chapter” of Tory infighting showed why it was time for a change of power. The Liberal Democrats said Mr Sunak had lost control of government, as another minister “flees this sinking ship”.Mr Sunak now faces the near-impossible task of winning votes from both the Tory right, who wanted a “full fat” crackdown on the ECHR, and moderate MPs in the “One Nation” group who warn they cannot back legislation that flouts human rights law.Adding to the PM’s woes, the sacked home secretary Suella Braverman issued a stinging attack on Mr Sunak – warning that he faces “electoral oblivion” if he fails to get Rwanda flights off the ground before the next election.The new Sunak bill includes provisions to disapply relevant parts of the Human Rights Act so they cannot be factored into court decisions on deportation cases – but does not try to disapply the ECHR.However, the legislation will ensure UK ministers “retain the decision on whether or not to comply” with interim orders from the European Court of Human Rights – the Strasbourg body that oversees the ECHR.In yet another headache for Mr Sunak, the Rwandan government immediately responded to the move by warning that it could pull out of the deal if the UK fails to comply with “the highest standards of international law”.The east-central African country’s foreign affairs minister Vincent Biruta warned: “Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership.” Jenrick had ‘pushed’ for stronger version of the new Rwanda billMr Sunak defended his plans at a showdown meeting of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers on Wednesday evening – but failed to keep the right-wingers onside.A source close to Ms Braverman made clear that the bill doesn’t come close to meeting her tests. “It is fatally flawed,” the ally said. “It is a further betrayal of Tory voters.”Some Tory right-wingers submitted letters of no confidence in Mr Sunak on Wednesday, according to ITV. Ex-minister Andrea Jenkyns, an ardent Boris Johnson loyalist, said Mr Jenrick’s resignation “may be the death knell for Sunak’s leadership”.Dozens of hardliners – including members of the 35-strong New Conservatives, the Common Sense Group and the European Research Group – met again on Wednesday evening to decide if they could vote for the new bill.The Independent understands many of them are unhappy with the “middle way” option to disapply the Human Rights Act. One senior MP said there would be “no purpose” to the bill if it fails to thwart ECHR challenges.The PM had been warned that he faced an even more damaging rebellion – with the possible resignation of up to 10 moderate ministers – if he used the emergency legislation to bypass the ECHR. Senior Tory moderate Damian Green, chair of the One Nation group – which boasts support from around 100 MPs – has warned Mr Sunak that he “should think twice before overriding both the ECHR and HRA”.Former home secretary Suella Braverman told Mr Sunak to bypass ECHR or face ‘oblivion’A spokesman for One Nation said it welcomed the government’s decision to stick with “international commitments” – but is now taking legal advice on whether it can now support the bill.The front page of the legislation concedes that the government is unable to say whether the bill is compatible with the ECHR, an admission that may make moderates uneasy about voting for it in parliament in the crucial days ahead.New foreign secretary David Cameron said he was “sorry” that Mr Jenrick had resigned. But he defended the “comprehensive” Rwanda bill – claiming it would “put this policy beyond doubt” and get flights started.In his exit letter, Mr Jenrick told the Tory leader he refused to be “yet another politician who makes promises on immigration to the British public but does not keep them”. Mr Sunak wrote back: “Your resignation is disappointing given we both agree on the ends, getting flights off to Rwanda so that we can stop the boats. I fear that your departure is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. It is our experience that gives us confidence that this will work.”In another surprise, Ms Braverman made a formal resignation speech in the Commons. She suggested her own previous “stop the boats” legislation should have been scrapped in favour of a “more robust alternative that excluded international and human rights laws”.The Tory hardliner attacked “expansive human rights laws flowing” from the ECHR that were stopping the Rwanda flights. Ms Braverman also said it was “no secret” that she supports quitting the ECHR altogether.Her unusual personal statement to the Commons followed her bitter exit last month. A similar speech by Geoffrey Howe following his resignation in the Commons in 1990 is often credited with ending Margaret Thatcher’s political career.It came despite the government claiming that the new bill would “unambiguously exclude the courts from challenging the fact that Rwanda is safe”. Mr Sunak insisted that his new legislation would make sure his Rwanda plan “cannot be stopped”.Speaking in the Commons, Mr Cleverly said the bill was “lawful, fair and necessary”. The home secretary told MPs that the government was determined to pass its emergency legislation through parliament quickly. He also denied Labour claims that Rwanda was getting cold feet due to the “toxic” deal. The UK’s top court last month blocked the Rwanda policy over concerns that genuine refugees could be wrongly sent back to their countries of origin where they would face persecution.Nick Vineall KC, chair of the Bar Council, said the new bill was still “likely to give rise to legal challenges” over planned deportations – pointing out that it “retains the right of the courts to consider whether Rwanda is a safe country”. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailRishi Sunak has stopped short of introducing the Hillsborough Law demanded by campaigners, as he issued an apology to bereaved families in the Commons.Former bishop of Liverpool James Jones set out 25 learning points in his 2017 report following inquests into the disaster at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final in Sheffield – where 97 Liverpool FC fans died.In its long-awaited response on Wednesday, the government has said it had signed up to a Hillsborough Charter – pledging to place the public interest above its own reputation – but said a “Hillsborough Law”, enforcing a legal duty of candour, was not necessary.In the foreword, home secretary James Cleverly and justice secretary Alex Chalk admitted the response had taken “too long, compounding the agony of the Hillsborough families and survivors”. The ministers added: “For this we are deeply sorry.”Mr Sunak said: “The Hillsborough families have suffered multiple injustices and more than 34 years later there can never be too many apologies for what they have been through.”The PM added: “And I want to repeat that apology today and thank the Hillsborough families for their tenacity, patience and courage.”Inquests into the deaths at the match, played between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest on 15 April 1989, concluded in 2016 and found that fans were unlawfully killed and errors by the police and ambulance service caused or contributed to their deaths.The match commander on the day, David Duckenfield, was charged with gross negligence manslaughter in 2017 but he was cleared in 2019 at a retrial, after the jury in his first trial was unable to reach a verdict.Hillsborough campaigner Margaret Aspinall and Manchester mayor Andy Burnham outside Anfield memorial in 2022 In his 2017 report, Mr Jones called for the government to give “full consideration” to a “Hillsborough Law” or Public Authority (Accountability) Bill.The aim was to include a legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials to tell the truth and proactively cooperate with official investigations and inquiries.But the Tory government said it was “not aware” of any gaps in legislation or clarifications needed that would further encourage a culture of candour among public servants in law.It is understood ministers believe that adopting the duty of candour would risk “creating conflict and confusion” because of the framework of duties and obligations already developed since the disaster.In its report, the government said the families and survivors were “entirely justified” in their frustration with the evasiveness they experienced from public officials. But it said much had changed in terms of expectations and requirements on public officials since 1989.Rishi Sunak repeated government apology to Hillsborough families It said that “continuing to drive and encourage a culture of candour among public servants” was essential and an important part of the Hillsborough Charter, which deputy PM Oliver Dowden had signed on behalf of the government.Mr Jones said the government’s response “falls short of the hopes of the Hillsborough families” – but said it was “a serious and substantial response” and welcomed the decision to sign the charter.Former Tory prime minister Theresa May bemoaned the fact it has taken “so long” to respond to Mr Jones’ report. She asked for details on specific steps to ensure a new culture is instilled “across the whole of the public sector”.The justice secretary highlighted efforts to put the charter into effect, saying it will be in training for police officers and induction for civil servants. Mr Chalk added it will “become part of the culture of what it means to be a civil servant in Britain”.Leaders of public bodies who sign up to the charter commit to place the public interest above their own reputations.Other organisations that have already signed up to the charter include the National Police Chiefs’ Council, College of Policing, Crown Prosecution Service and Kensington and Chelsea Council, the report said.The government response also states that it will consult on expanding the provision of legal aid for inquests following public disasters.In 2021, retired officers Donald Denton and Alan Foster and former force solicitor Peter Metcalf, who were accused of amending statements to minimise the blame on South Yorkshire Police after the tragedy, were acquitted of perverting the course of justice.Mr Justice William Davis said the amended statements were intended for a public inquiry into safety at sports grounds led by Lord Justice Taylor, but that was not a course of public justice. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailWatch as David Cameron meets with US House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday, 6 December as part of his first visit to the US since becoming foreign secretary.As part of the trip, Lord Cameron was due to hold a series of bilateral meetings – he was expected to speak with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, as well as Republican and Democratic members of Congress.According to the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the former prime minister’s discussions will focus on supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression.It comes after Joe Biden urged Congress to pass his national security supplemental request, including funding to support Ukraine, earlier on Wednesday.The US president’s administration has warned Congress that money for the European country will run out by the end of the year as Russia’s invasion continues.Earlier this week, Mr Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan declared that not passing the additional aid would “make it easier for Putin to prevail.” More

Sign up to our free Brexit and beyond email for the latest headlines on what Brexit is meaning for the UKSign up to our Brexit email for the latest insightRishi Sunak has been handed a major boost after EU officials agreed to delay post-Brexit tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs) ahead of a looming “cliff edge” deadline.The UK government had been urging Brussels to push back the costly new tariff rules set to come into force in January 2024 as part of Boris Johnson’s Brexit trade deal.On Wednesday the European Commission said it wanted to delay the rules – set to hit the electric cars trade between the EU and Britain – by three years.The commission also said it was setting aside an additional €3bn (£2.6bn) to boost the EU’s battery manufacturing industry – a move designed to counter China’s dominance in batteries.Mr Johnson’s Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) agreed that, to qualify for zero tariffs, at least 45 per cent of the value of EVs need to be from the EU or Britain.Import tariffs of 10 per cent were set to apply on companies for falling short of those requirements in their cars and other vehicles.The Independent revealed in October that British industry bosses feared the changes could increase the price of electric vehicles in the UK by £6,000.Given batteries represent 30 to 40 per cent of a car’s value and that most are from China, carmakers argued they would not have been able to meet the content requirements.Rishi Sunak with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen agreeing deal on Northern Ireland earlier this year The new EU proposal is to extend the first transition period by three years to 2027 when the full local content requirements of the TCA will apply. A second planned transition period will not apply.Thierry Breton, the influential European commissioner, had said in September that it would be wrong to give in to pressure from one industry. “If something has been negotiated, it shouldn’t be changed,” he said on the Brexit deal.But European Commission vice-president Maros Sefcovic – who oversees EU relations with Britain – said on Wednesday that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and soaring energy prices meant that EU battery production had not scaled up as planned.Mr Sefcovic also cited the subsidy schemes offered by Europe’s rivals for the change in heart among top Brussels officials.Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Rishi Sunak had been pushing for delay to car tariffs The EU had been warned of an “existential threat” posed by new rules of origin by carmakers. The UK’s Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) previously called for a delay until 2027.The VDA – the lobby group for Germany’s car industry – ramped up the pressure by saying “we must urgently make adjustments” to the Brexit deal.The breakthrough comes after Mr Sunak managed to clear up some of the post-Brexit mess by agreeing a deal for the UK to rejoin the EU’s £85bn Horizon science research scheme. It was formally agreed this week.Earlier this year, the Tory leader agreed the Windsor Framework with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to ease post-Brexit trading problems in Northern Ireland.Ms Von der Leyen last week described it as “a new beginning for old friends”. She also suggested that young Britons could still reverse Brexit by deciding to rejoin the EU in the years ahead. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailFormer British prime minister Boris Johnson appeared before the Covid inquiry on Wednesday morning for the first of two days of questioning about his leadership of the country through the pandemic from 2020 to 2022.Mr Johnson’s evidence had hardly begun when four protesters had to be ejected from the hearing room, saying his apologies for the mistakes of his administration were insufficient and had led to the loss of lives.The former PM insisted he had done his “level best” to respond to the needs of the nation but that errors were inevitable due to the constantly evolving nature of the threat posed by the respiratory virus.Mr Johnson faced tough questions on the stand and sometimes struggled to give credible answers under pressure from the inquiry’s counsel Hugo Keith KC.Here are 10 points on which he found himself on a sticky wicket during Wednesday’s evidence.Insists on commitment to transparencyAsked what his approach had been to the disclosure of his own Covid-related emails, WhatsApps and notes, Mr Johnson said: “I’ve done my best to give everything of any conceivable relevance.”He was asked about an exchange of messages from 20 December 2021 between cabinet secretary Simon Case and his former principal private secretary Martin Reynolds in which Mr Case wrote: “PM is mad if he doesn’t think his WhatsApps will become public via Covid inquiry – but he was clearly not in the mood for that discussion tonight!”Mr Johnson said: “I don’t remember that conversation to which the cabinet secretary is referring and I’ve handed over all the relevant WhatsApps.”Cannot account for lost WhatsApp messagesAbout 5,000 WhatsApp messages on Mr Johnson’s phone from 30 January 2020 to June 2020 were unavailable to the inquiry.Asked why, Mr Johnson answered: “I don’t know the exact reason, but it looks as though it’s something to do with the app going down and then coming up again, but somehow automatically erasing all the things between that date when it went down and the moment when it was last backed up.”Mr Keith said a technical report provided by Mr Johnson’s solicitors suggested there may have been a factory reset at the end of January 2020 followed by an attempt to reinstate the contents in June 2020, but the former prime minister denied knowledge of that.“I don’t remember any such thing,” he said.Mr Johnson confirmed he had made plain during the legal battle between the Cabinet Office and the inquiry that his messages should be disclosed.He added: “Can I, for the avoidance of doubt, make it absolutely clear I haven’t removed any WhatsApps from my phone and I’ve given you everything that I think you need.”Admits mistakes madeMr Johnson acknowledged that his government “may have made mistakes” in handling the pandemic.“So many people suffered, so many people lost their lives,” he said.“Inevitably in the course of trying to handle a very, very difficult pandemic in which we had to balance appalling harms on either side of the decision, we may have made mistakes.”He continued: “Inevitably we got some things wrong [but] 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.”“Were there things that we should have done differently? Unquestionably.”Declines to take blame for excess deathsMr Johnson said he was “not sure” whether government decision-making had led to “materially” a larger number of excess deaths as a result of the pandemic.The former PM told Mr Keith: “I can’t give you the answer to that question, I’m not sure.”He questioned the lead counsel’s statement that the UK was among the worst performers in Europe, insisting Britain was “well down the European table and well down the world table”.Mr Keith responded that in “western Europe, we were one of the worst off, if not the second worst off”.Mr Johnson, pressed again on why the UK had such a rate of excess deaths, said: “Irrespective of government action, we have an elderly population, extremely elderly population. We do suffer, sadly, from lots of Covid-related comorbidities and we are a very, very densely populated country. That did not help.”Denies Dominic Cummings too powerfulMr Johnson rejected suggestions that his government was designed to place Dominic Cummings, along with himself, as “decision-makers” while ministers were “largely irrelevant” to policy or execution.“[Sajid] Javid has said in his witness statement that the Cabinet was designed, in his view, to place Dominic Cummings and the prime minister as the decision-makers, to centralise power in Number 10 and, in his own witness statement, Mr Cummings has said that the cabinet was largely irrelevant to policy or execution on account of the leaks, your inability to chair it and because it was seen by No 10 as not being a serious place for serious discussion,” Mr Keith said.Mr Johnson replied: “I don’t think that’s true. I think there were some really excellent cabinet discussions about the trade-offs.”But he claimed that the cabinet as a whole was “more reluctant” to impose non-pharmaceutical interventions than he was.“That wasn’t true for every member of the cabinet but that would be a general comment,” he added.Admits Sage guidance rarely readMr Johnson told the inquiry he may have only read Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) minutes “once or twice”.Asked whether he ever read the minutes, the former prime minister said: “I think I did once or twice look at the – maybe more than that – looked at what Sage had actually said and Sage certainly produced a lot of documentation.“But I think that the CSA [chief scientific adviser] and CMO [chief medical officer] did an outstanding job of leading Sage and distilling their views and conveying them to me.”He added: “in retrospect it may have been valuable to hear the Sage conversation unpasteurised itself, but I was more than content with the very clear summaries that I was getting from the CSA and the CMO.”Mr Keith countered: “Did you not think of looking at the scientific horse in the mouth and seeing what was actually said by the government’s primary scientific advisory committee on these issues when you, as now appears to be the case, you became engaged particularly in the debate of behavioural fatigue? Why didn’t you call for the primary material?”Mr Johnson replied: “I think that’s a good question. I was very, very much impressed by and dependent on the CMO and the CSA, both of whom are outstanding experts in their field and it felt to me that I couldn’t do better than that.”Admits meetings too male-dominatedMr Johnson conceded that the gender balance of his top team should have been “better”.He said he had a gender balance in his staff while mayor of London, describing his office as “very harmonious”.“I think that the gender balance of my team should have been better,” he told the inquiry of his time as prime minister during the pandemic.“I think sometimes during the pandemic, too many meetings were too male-dominated if I’m absolutely honest with you.”Defends retaining Matt HancockMr Johnson defended keeping former health secretary Matt Hancock in his post, despite calls from his aide Dominic Cummings that he should have been sacked.Mr Johnson said: “If you’re prime minister, you are constantly being lobbied by somebody to sack somebody else. It’s just what, I’m afraid, happens and it’s part of life.”He acknowledged Mr Cummings had a “low opinion” of Mr Hancock but “I thought he was wrong”.“I stuck by the health secretary. I thought the health secretary worked very hard.”He said Mr Hancock “may have had defects [but] I thought that he was doing his best in very difficult circumstances and I thought he was a good communicator”.Dismisses criticism of senior officialsMr Johnson dismissed the exasperated messages exchanged between senior officials Mark Sedwill and Mr Case.In July 2020, Mr Case, the then-head official in Downing Street and now the cabinet secretary, said. “I’ve never seen a bunch of people less well-equipped to run a country”, in a message to Sir Mark, who was cabinet secretary at the time.But Mr Johnson said Whitehall mandarins would have said similar “pretty fruity” things about the Thatcher administration if their “unexpurgated” messages had been available in the same way as WhatsApp exchanges now.He said WhatsApp messages tended to be “ephemeral, it tends to the pejorative and the hyperbolical”.“I think that the worst vice, in my view, would have been to have had an operation where everybody was so deferential and so reluctant to make waves that they never expressed their opinion, they never challenged and they never doubted.“It was much more important to have a group of people who are willing to doubt themselves and to doubt each other. And I think that that was creatively useful rather than the reverse.”Admits Covid threat underestimatedMr Johnson conceded that the wider government had “underestimated” the threat posed by Covid-19.He told the inquiry: “I think that it would certainly be fair to say of me, the entire Whitehall establishment, scientific community included, our advisers included, that we underestimated the scale and the pace of the challenge. You can see that very clearly in those early days in March.“We were all collectively underestimating how fast it had already spread in the UK. We put the first peak too late, we thought it would be May/June – that was totally wrong. I don’t blame the scientists for that at all. That was the feeling and it just turned out to be wrong.”Additional reporting by agencies More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailBoris Johnson has been given an hour for lunch after two and a half hours of grilling at the Covid inquiry.The former prime minister has appeared remarkably composed, and has refused to criticise those working alongside him during the pandemic, insisting he takes “personal responsibility for all the decisions” his government made.But, while his evidence session so far has seen less mud-slinging than others’, notably Dominic Cummings, there have still been several striking revelations.Here are the key things we have learned from Mr Johnson so far:Mr Johnson’s 5,000 missing WhatsAppsAbout 5,000 WhatsApp messages on Boris Johnson’s phone from January 30, 2020 to June 2020 were unavailable to the inquiry.Mr Johnson, somewhat remarkably, said: “I don’t know the exact reason, but it looks as though it’s something to do with the app going down and then coming up again, but somehow automatically erasing all the things between that date when it went down and the moment when it was last backed up.”He was asked by inquiry counsel Hugo Keith KC about a factory reset that was carried out on the phone, but appeared not to know what one was, replying: “A factory reset?”The ex-PM accepts he “unquestionably made mistakes”Boris Johnson opened his evidence with an apology to those who lost loved ones during the pandemic, admitting he “unquestionably” made mistakes.But, as Mr Johnson was saying sorry “for the loss, pain and suffering”, he was interrupted by four protesters who had to be booted out of the hearing room.The protesters were unconvinced by Mr Johnson, saying they “didn’t want his apology”.They said they stood up as he began apologising to hold up signs that read: “The Dead can’t hear your apologies.’Prime minister was not keen on reading Sage minutesBoris Johnson admitted that he had only read the minutes of Sage meetings “once or twice” during the pandemic.He said he instead asked Sir Patrick Vallance and Sir Chris Whitty to sum them up.His cabinet pushed back on lockdown measuresBoris Johnson claimed his cabinet was more reluctant “on the whole” to impose measures to curtail the pandemic than he was.“There were some really excellent and candid discussions about the trade offs,” Mr Johnson said.But he added: “I think it would be fair to say that the cabinet was on the whole more reluctant to impose NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) than I was.”Pandemic meetings were ‘too male dominated’Boris Johnson admitted that meetings held during the pandemic were “too male dominated”, a criticism which has been heard frequently during the inquiry.He said he tried to rectify the problem by recruiting women, including a former colleague from City Hall when he was London mayor.He has apologised to Helen MacNamaraBoris Johnson revealed that he had personally apologised to the former deputy cabinet secretary Helen MacNamara, who was referred to as a “c***” by his top aide Dominic Cummings.The inquiry previously saw WhatsApp messages from Mr Cummings in which he talked about “dodging stilettos from that c**t”, referring to Ms MacNamara.“I’ve apologised to one particular person who suffered abuse in one of those publicised WhatsApp exchanges,” Mr Johnson revealed.But he said some of the vulgar language used in government WhatsApp groups seen by the inquiry was “completely unknown” to him.Boris Johnson thought Matt Hancock had ‘defects’, but backed him overallBoris Johnson said Matt Hancock had “defects” as health secretary, but that Dominic Cummings’s summary of him as useless was “wrong”.Mr Johnson defended his former health secretary, saying: “I thought that he was doing his best in very difficult circumstances and I thought he was a good communicator.”The government was focused on comms, not actionA WhatsApp exchange seen by the inquiry revealed Boris Johnson and his two top advisers were focused on “comms” as Covid struck in February 2020.Mr Keith pressed the former PM on why their focus was communications, and not “steps to deal with infection control”.Mr Johnson was ‘rattled’ by scenes in Italy, but thought the biggest damage of Covid would be overreactingBoris Johnson said he was “rattled” by the scenes unfolding in Italy in the early stages of the pandemic, and admitted he should have “twigged” what was happening sooner.But a set of notes seen by the inquiry shortly after showed that Mr Johnson was concerned the “biggest damage” of Covid would be “done by overreacting”.Mr Johnson was not on holiday in February 2020The inquiry accepted Mr Johnson’s defence that he was not in fact on holiday in February 2020, an accusation levelled by Dominic Cummings.The former PM said he was “working throughout the period and the tempo did increase”.Inquiry counsel Hugo Keith KC said “nobody is suggesting you put your feet up at Chevening”.One person has been impressed by Mr Johnson’s testimony so far.Perhaps unsurprisingly Nadine Dorries, the former PM’s most staunch backer, said it is now “clear who was the grown up in the room”.The scores of bereaved family members gathered outside the inquiry building clearly take a different view. More