there are some things that i have perfected on overtime. —— that i have reflected on. sage's views were presented as a consensus or a single view. i think there was definitely not an accurate perception of the debate within sage about most things. debate within sage about most thins. ., ., ., a debate within sage about most thins. ., ., ., i” debate within sage about most thinus. ., ., ., i” ., debate within sage about most thins. ., ., ., , ., things. cannot ask you to pause that and ask you — things. cannot ask you to pause that and ask you about _ things. cannot ask you to pause that and ask you about your _ things. cannot ask you to pause that and ask you about your views - things. cannot ask you to pause that and ask you about your views on - things. cannot ask you to pause that| and ask you about your views on that first point? evidence has been given to the effect that, indeed, the consensus minutes were relatively short, designed people to allow people to read them. evidence has been given to extent to which they were read. it is obvious that number ten had officials attend sage, and obvious that hmt had officials attend as well. so that the wider range of views could be made clear to the sponsoring departments, number ten and the hmt. would that not suffice? i number ten and the hmt. would that not suffice? ., �* ~ ., ., , not suffice? i don't think that was the exquisite _ not suffice? i don't think that was the exquisite reason _ not suffice? i don't think that was the exquisite reason that - not suffice? i don't think that was l the exquisite reason that someone was on the call, they were there more generally. i'm making the point that i think, more generally in the policy debate that were being hard, and in the external communications, i'm not sure the country probably understood that there was less consensus within sage that was presented. this was an inherently tricky subject. {lin presented. this was an inherently tricky subject-— presented. this was an inherently tricky subject. tricky sub'ect. on that issue, some evidence tricky subject. on that issue, some evidence has _ tricky subject. on that issue, some evidence has been _ tricky subject. on that issue, some evidence has been given _ tricky subject. on that issue, some evidence has been given to - tricky subject. on that issue, some evidence has been given to the - evidence has been given to the effect that sage responded to commission requests from the government. the government would raise issues to which it would respond. and sage advised while government decides. in your reflections, do you think that sage could ever have been put in a position of making specific recommendations, there is to say specific advice on policy outcomes of its own bat? i specific advice on policy outcomes of its own bat?— of its own bat? i think they are conflating _ of its own bat? i think they are conflating two _ of its own bat? i think they are conflating two micro _ of its own bat? i think they are conflating two micro things - of its own bat? i think they are i conflating two micro things there. the first is that even on the advice, not the specific policy recommendations, even on the scientific advice that they were putting, as they have now said, they themselves were deeply divided over themselves were deeply divided over the scientific evidence. that is from one of them that was there at the time. that was underappreciated, and i think in hindsight and on reflection, it probably would be good to have made sure there was a broader awareness of that point. the second thing is that the science itself as you pointed out, was itself as you pointed out, was itself uncertain. people here science, but it was uncertain science, but it was uncertain science, and it would be to simplicity say there was one answer and it was prone to change. sage's advice on ace into matic transmission, the benefit of masks, it changed over time. science itself is not certain, there was more debate about it. i'm not sure that nuance was communicated, perhaps, as much as it should have been. it wasn't as simple as crystal—clear science view, some other view, the science view, some other view, the science itself had a range of views within it. for supercity, science itself had a range of views within it. forsupercity, reaching science itself had a range of views within it. for supercity, reaching a consensus is helpful for policymakers but we can't lose sight of the fact that it was more complex than that. but of the fact that it was more complex than that. �* , ., of the fact that it was more complex than that. �* ,, ., ._ , , ., ., than that. but you always understood that sa . e than that. but you always understood that sage advised _ than that. but you always understood that sage advised while _ than that. but you always understood that sage advised while governmentl that sage advised while government decided, there was no question of you thinking at the time that these scientists were doing any more than giving advice to the government based on their best knowledge and experience as to what the consequences are of any particular policy decision the government reaches? sage never said, you the government must, on monday, impose a lockdown? it didn't look like that, did it? �* ., , ., ., i did it? i'm not sure how the advice was rice did it? i'm not sure how the advice was price was _ did it? i'm not sure how the advice was price was up — did it? i'm not sure how the advice was price was up you _ did it? i'm not sure how the advice was price was up you have - did it? i'm not sure how the advice was price was up you have read - did it? i'm not sure how the advice| was price was up you have read the consensus. in general, says'sjob was to provide advice to the government in the sphere when i had —— where they had competence, which was public health. there was a focus more on sage than other aspects of it. ithink more on sage than other aspects of it. i think everyone from sage has subsequently made it crystal—clear that they view policymakers is having to take into account many other considerations in their deliberations. i think they would say that, the chief scientific adviser said that. had one important input into that multifaceted process. iii input into that multifaceted rocess. ., , input into that multifaceted rocess. . , ., ., , process. if all they were doing was -arovidin process. if all they were doing was providing advice, _ process. if all they were doing was providing advice, why _ process. if all they were doing was providing advice, why did - process. if all they were doing was providing advice, why did you - process. if all they were doing was providing advice, why did you say i process. if all they were doing was | providing advice, why did you say in that spectator article, if you empower all these independent people, you are screwed. we should not have empowered the scientists in the way we did. not have empowered the scientists in the way we did-— the way we did. what i would prefer to doubt was _ the way we did. what i would prefer to doubt was a _ the way we did. what i would prefer to doubt was a similar _ the way we did. what i would prefer to doubt was a similar comment - the way we did. what i would prefer| to doubt was a similar comment was made by the governor of the institute for government. he talked about distorting consequences of extreme focus on sage. that was the point that, in the debate, there was an elevation of sage in that debate. on reflection, that is something to consider, whether that was appropriate. sage, as we have discussed and they would be open about, had a particularfocus, but it was only one focus. the policy had to make as had to take that into consideration when making decisions. as it was, i'm sure we will come once with later, there wasn't an equivalent or a similar in the public eye, and whether distorted the debate is open to discussion and deliberation. we the debate is open to discussion and deliberation-— deliberation. we will come back to economic sage _ deliberation. we will come back to economic sage soon. _ deliberation. we will come back to economic sage soon. the - deliberation. we will come back to i economic sage soon. the question of sage as it was, did you form any view over time as to the process by which the sage advice was funnelled through the chief medical officer to the prime minister? it is plain they gave verbal briefings to the prime minister, who may or may not have read the minutes, as to what the import was to the advice that was being given almost twice a week, three times a week in the crisis. did you have a view as to whether that funnel system is working? i5 that funnel system is working? i3 probably not something i had any great understanding of, the relationship between sage and the prime minister. i had a more granular understanding of what was happening at sage because, as you have pointed out, someone was there, able to relate to me where it was relevant a slight nuance, which will sell for me going into meetings, knowing that there may be more debate within sage than was necessarily being presented in the summary of their discussion. shill summary of their discussion. all ri . ht. summary of their discussion. all right. on the issue of economic sage, you are aware that the institute for government report on the treasury during covid from 2023 posited the possibility of a parallel committee to sage being formed to address socio— economic issues, so that the scientific issues, so that the scientific issues could be fed through the existing sage in parallel to the socioeconomics sage that would deal with the other countervailing considerations that could be brought together with another body at government level. did you or your officials ever contemplate the institution of such a committee or take part in a debate as to whether this was a good idea to pursue? it was never something that was raised with me and i think the evidence you have heard from the treasury, corporate and the chief economic adviser makes it clear that it was never put forward as a formal proposal, noras never put forward as a formal proposal, nor as an official hmt view. ., proposal, nor as an official hmt view. . , proposal, nor as an official hmt view. ., , , view. can i pause you there, she attended a _ view. can i pause you there, she attended a meeting _ view. can i pause you there, she attended a meeting on - view. can i pause you there, she attended a meeting on the - view. can i pause you there, she attended a meeting on the 5th i view. can i pause you there, she| attended a meeting on the 5th of june. a attended a meeting on the 5th of june._ a number i attended a meeting on the 5th of june._ a number of| june. one meeting. a number of otions june. one meeting. a number of options were _ june. one meeting. a number of options were posited, _ june. one meeting. a number of options were posited, and - june. one meeting. a number of options were posited, and an - options were posited, and an economic sage or something more informal. she put to her colleagues informal. she put to her colleagues in the treasury, 235, 261, that the economists obviously killed the single model, some like the idea of an economic sage, but it was agreed that sir patrick balance... stephen aldridge, is he hmt? i don't know. he stephen aldridge, is he hmt? i don't know- he was — stephen aldridge, is he hmt? i don't know. he was on _ stephen aldridge, is he hmt? i don't know. he was on top _ stephen aldridge, is he hmt? i don't know. he was on top of— stephen aldridge, is he hmt? i don't know. he was on top of the - stephen aldridge, is he hmt? i don't know. he was on top of the memo i stephen aldridge, is he hmt? i don't l know. he was on top of the memo that you had before. i recollect working with him in a previous role in a different department, and i don't remember working with him at the treasury, so i can't tell you definitively. in treasury, so i can't tell you definitively.— treasury, so i can't tell you definitively. treasury, so i can't tell you definitivel . . , definitively. in any event, it was not raised _ definitively. in any event, it was not raised with _ definitively. in any event, it was not raised with you, _ definitively. in any event, it was - not raised with you, notwithstanding your concerns about sage? ila. not raised with you, notwithstanding your concerns about sage?— your concerns about sage? no, but this is a different _ your concerns about sage? no, but this is a different point. _ your concerns about sage? no, but this is a different point. this - your concerns about sage? no, but this is a different point. this is - this is a different point. this is about- -- _ this is a different point. this is about... ma — this is a different point. this is about... did you _ this is a different point. this is about... did you express - this is a different point. this is - about... did you express internally or to others your concerns about the empowerment of scientists during the crisis? in which case, why was there not more consideration given to this alternative model by the treasury? so i think the question is, as i understand it, the debate on the economic sage, which was not something that i remember being raised with me at all, all the prime and, during this period. i think there are different rationales as to why people think an economic sage might have been helpful. it was important to separate them because they are different rationales. one is that the modelling expertise or more generally the expertise didn't exist inside the treasury to do the job, but that is something that i don't think it's true. i think the treasury did have the capability to do the analysis and improved it over time, but engaged extensively with external people and economists, as it should do, to build that advice, using new forms of data. the second thing is there are independent organisations, principally the ibr and the bank of england and others, so hmt is not operating in a vacuum. there are independent bodies doing a similarjob ata there are independent bodies doing a similarjob at a high level. i don't think that reason for an economic sage stacks up. there is a separate rationale which is more what you were alluding to, which it might be helpful as a counterweight in the narrative. if you had a public health sage, you needed an economic sage. that is a different reason. i'm not personally particular persuaded by that, because i think the expertise exists. it is more for government to decide how it wants to appropriately balance these things. you are, with respect, the government now. you must have formed a view as to whether or not, in the light of this crisis, the optimum system was put into place and whether or not there is a good argument for having a parallel body for dealing with other nonscientific considerations. i’m for dealing with other nonscientific considerations.— considerations. i'm not particular persuaded _ considerations. i'm not particular persuaded that _ considerations. i'm not particular persuaded that it _ considerations. i'm not particular persuaded that it is _ considerations. i'm not particular persuaded that it is necessary. i persuaded that it is necessary. unlike sage, that expertise exists within government departments. the treasury has the ability to do the modelling and the analysis that is necessary on the economy added works with external bodies. you mentioned ian diamond, who has said that he worked closely with the treasury in this period, there are other organisations that do the same sort of thing. ditto other departments, where the expertise exists. with sage, that expertise did not exist within the department of health, which is why it was necessary. i don't think that rationale really supports the need for an economic sage. there is a separate point, though, about titles, structures, not to develop extra information but just how they are weighed in the debate and the discussion. again, i have expressed some reflections about how sage was perceived, which i tend to agree with the institute for government comment, that there was... that there was a distal portion of focus. that is right. it doesn't mean you need to create countervailing structures, just think about sage differently. people may have different points of view, but my reflections are that it wouldn't necessarily have added to anything. it wouldn't necessarily have added to an hina. . wouldn't necessarily have added to an hina. , .,, wouldn't necessarily have added to an hina. .,, ., anything. it is obvious that the treasury avoided _ anything. it is obvious that the treasury avoided detailed - anything. it is obvious that the - treasury avoided detailed analysis to number ten, relayed through these bilateral meetings as part of e—mails to the cabinet office. but that advice, of course, was not transparent in the same way that the sage advice was, would you agree? these weren't reflections of an hmt committee, the minutes of which were then condensed and published and made known to the world? yes. then condensed and published and made known to the world?- made known to the world? yes, i think that made known to the world? yes, i thinkthat is... — made known to the world? yes, i think that is. .. its _ made known to the world? yes, i think that is... its not _ made known to the world? yes, i think that is... its not quite - think that is... its not quite right. because hmt did publish a considerable amount of information. of underlying data. but the advice and the analysis which was given directly to downing street by hmt was never itself published, was it? i think that is entirely normal, but yes. the same goes for every department, by the way, including the department of health and everything else.— the department of health and everything else. yes, but we are examining _ everything else. yes, but we are examining this _ everything else. yes, but we are examining this issue _ everything else. yes, but we are examining this issue in - everything else. yes, but we are examining this issue in the - everything else. yes, but we are i examining this issue in the unique circumstances of the ultimate decision—making process of the prime minister, which was how to balance economic societal and other