not pass it on. there is a different thing again. actually quite an important distinction.- thing again. actually quite an important distinction. when you have a dress that as _ important distinction. when you have a dress that as well. _ important distinction. when you have a dress that as well. in _ important distinction. when you have a dress that as well. in your- a dress that as well. in your statement. —— and you have addressed that. statement. —— and you have addressed that and _ statement. —— and you have addressed that. and there was a stock—take meeting. — that. and there was a stock—take meeting, the meeting to which she referred _ meeting, the meeting to which she referred earlier, that is,, i think, 146558, — referred earlier, that is,, i think, 146558, a — referred earlier, that is,, i think, 146558, a letter from imran shafi, who reported on the meeting, a meeting — who reported on the meeting, a meeting between yourself and the prime _ meeting between yourself and the prime minister, the secretary of state, _ prime minister, the secretary of state, and — prime minister, the secretary of state, and a number of advisers and colleagues — state, and a number of advisers and colleagues. including the national security— colleagues. including the national security adviser. the second paragraph on that page, it is, as it happens. — paragraph on that page, it is, as it happens, the only substantive paragraph that deals with coronavirus. we began with a short update _ coronavirus. we began with a short update on — coronavirus. we began with a short update on coronavirus, following an update _ update on coronavirus, following an update from the cmo, the prime minister— update from the cmo, the prime minister stressed the need to to continue — minister stressed the need to to continue to explain our stance, to main _ continue to explain our stance, to main definite maintain public confidence in the plan. may we presume — confidence in the plan. may we presume that as a reference to the government plan, whatever it might have treen— government plan, whatever it might have been by that date? and for travel— have been by that date? and for travel restrictions, your secretary of state _ travel restrictions, your secretary of state was engaging in a foreign, weatth— of state was engaging in a foreign, wealth office and would defer with a proposal— wealth office and would defer with a proposal forward, wealth office and would defer with a proposalforward, but wealth office and would defer with a proposal forward, but in truth, on the border, — proposal forward, but in truth, on the border, closures or significant restrictions— the border, closures or significant restrictions had already been advised — restrictions had already been advised upon, at least in the first instance. — advised upon, at least in the first instance, because it came back again and again _ instance, because it came back again and again. and will require an assessment of what constitutes a proportion of response, please keep number— proportion of response, please keep number 10 _ proportion of response, please keep number 10 closely involved on responses in the coming days. there would _ responses in the coming days. there would not _ responses in the coming days. there would not appear, on the face of that paragraph, to be much by the way in _ that paragraph, to be much by the way in the — that paragraph, to be much by the way in the way of threat, as you describe — way in the way of threat, as you describe l— way in the way of threat, as you describe. ., way in the way of threat, as you describe. . . . , describe. i agree. can i give a bit of commentary. _ describe. i agree. can i give a bit of commentary, because - describe. i agree. can i give a bit of commentary, because i - describe. i agree. can i give a bit of commentary, because i think. describe. i agree. can i give a bit i of commentary, because i think this is a fundamental issue, not as individuals and want to be clear, i think the private secretary is doing what he should do, he is a outstanding private secretary, he was, and subsequently... you have a situation where the chief medical officer and, as you know from other documents, reported to the prime minister that there was a possibility, wasn't a certainty, of a pandemic, and if this pandemic occurred, my view was it was reasonable to think that this is not the same as a reasonable worst—case tomorrow. the same as a reasonable worst-case tomorrow. ., . . the same as a reasonable worst-case tomorrow. . , , . , ., tomorrow. please be much slower, in this important — tomorrow. please be much slower, in this important issue. _ tomorrow. please be much slower, in this important issue. it _ tomorrow. please be much slower, in this important issue. it was _ this important issue. it was reasonable _ this important issue. it was reasonable to _ this important issue. it was reasonable to think - this important issue. it was reasonable to think that - this important issue. it was reasonable to think that we this important issue. it was - reasonable to think that we would be looking on a first pass, at maybe ice—300,000 deaths. to looking on a first pass, at maybe loo—300,000 deaths. to be clear, thatis loo—300,000 deaths. to be clear, that is pretty accurate to where we are, sadly now. i wasn't saying this was for certain. the important second point, this was not some maverick coming in and saying this, this was on the basis of the sage meeting, chaired by the government scientific adviser, cobra had met, the world health organization has by now declared it a public health emergency of international concern, it was all over the news. the point i would like to make on this, because i think this is actually something where we really do need to think very seriously in government, is that let us say, the general director of mi5 or the chief of staff, come in and said, there is a possibility of 100,000 plus people sadly dying from a terrorist attack from attack —— attack on the uk, the chances that this would have been the response in the letter, and this is what the system would have continued, as it did, next cobra meeting, still chaired by the secretary of state for health and social care, i think is quite small. the recent making that point is that this was not a new consideration. pandemic infection, flu, this is very similar to pandemic flu, has been top of the national risk register for years. been top of the national risk registerfor years. this is not a new potential threat. my worry has always been and, i think, this innocence reflects it, the political threat, are treated in a different way, and might view entirely, this is not a criticism, to ones which are seen as natural threats, all hazards —— or hazards. that i think is something that is collectively that we should think about. without prescribing us to any person. i think the same it could very easily have happened under a number of prime ministers and with a number of others in the room. this is not a statement about the individuals, this is a statement about the system, in my view, underplaying, relative to other threats, the natural threats, including health threats. i think that is quite a fundamental point, because had we had the centre of government electrified by this, i'm not saying the outcome would have been different, but i think it would at least have led to a stronger government think through of all the potential consequences. there government think through of all the potential consequences.— potential consequences. there is a lot in that. — potential consequences. there is a lot in that. a _ potential consequences. there is a lot in that, a professor. _ potential consequences. there is a lot in that, a professor. can - potential consequences. there is a lot in that, a professor. can i- potential consequences. there is a lot in that, a professor. can ijustl lot in that, a professor. can ijust divide _ lot in that, a professor. can ijust divide it— lot in that, a professor. can ijust divide it up— lot in that, a professor. can ijust divide it up briefly? in terms of the system, the inquiry had a degree of evidence _ the system, the inquiry had a degree of evidence in module one, about how the government system is differently designed _ the government system is differently designed depending on whether it is dealing _ designed depending on whether it is dealing with a threat, a terrorist outrage, — dealing with a threat, a terrorist outrage, for example, as opposed to a risi absence _ absence of perhaps an equally or the absence equally sophisticated, ? absence of perhaps an equally or the absence equally sophisticated,? or speedy— absence equally sophisticated,? or speedy system, by which threats can be speedily responded to? in the context— be speedily responded to? in the context of risks and public health emergencies?— emergencies? yes, and this is something _ emergencies? yes, and this is something which _ emergencies? yes, and this is something which was - emergencies? yes, and this is something which was already l emergencies? yes, and this is i something which was already top emergencies? yes, and this is - something which was already top of the national risk register. with understood consequential or across government. and this is probably way we could have moved up a gear or two. across government, and, as i say, i don't suppose this is a personal problem, i suppose this as a systemic problem. you personal problem, i suppose this as a systemic problem.— personal problem, i suppose this as a systemic problem. you have made that oint a systemic problem. you have made that point and _ a systemic problem. you have made that point and i'm _ a systemic problem. you have made that point and i'm not _ a systemic problem. you have made that point and i'm not suggesting i that point and i'm not suggesting that point and i'm not suggesting that this — that point and i'm not suggesting that this is a personal problem. the failure, _ that this is a personal problem. the failure, and — that this is a personal problem. the failure, and if it is, we will debate _ failure, and if it is, we will debate that, then it if it was part of any— debate that, then it if it was part of any individual, but putting aside a very— of any individual, but putting aside a very valid — of any individual, but putting aside a very valid point about whether or not this— a very valid point about whether or not this might have been a different reaction. _ not this might have been a different reaction. it— not this might have been a different reaction, if this had been a national— reaction, if this had been a national crisis, the fact remains that the — national crisis, the fact remains that the massive threat that you describe, — that the massive threat that you describe, is not apparent on the face _ describe, is not apparent on the face of— describe, is not apparent on the face of this— describe, is not apparent on the face of this paragraph. nobody in government appears to have been electrified, to use your word, by the information that there was a massive — the information that there was a massive threat. why was that? i massive threat. why was that? think, in a massive threat. why was that? i think, in a sense, that is my point, is the system is, it is a surprisingly bad, in my view, responding to threats of this kind, which are in the national—security system. i do not think that is an insoluble problem, and i think it is largely to do with the way that the national security apparatus, interprets its role, and i think we can properly make significant changes. can properly make significant chances. ., . , . , changes. you have repeatedly said, we, we in government. _ changes. you have repeatedly said, we, we in government. you, - we, we in government. you, personally, did you see this letter after the meeting, the stock meeting on the _ after the meeting, the stock meeting on the 4th— after the meeting, the stock meeting on the 4th of february? it after the meeting, the stock meeting on the 4th of february?— on the 4th of february? it wouldn't have particularly _ on the 4th of february? it wouldn't have particularly surprise _ on the 4th of february? it wouldn't have particularly surprise me - on the 4th of february? it wouldn't have particularly surprise me if i i have particularly surprise me if i had. have particularly surprise me ifi had. ., . ., . have particularly surprise me ifi had. ., ., ., ., , had. you had, you would have seen this paragraph _ had. you had, you would have seen this paragraph that _ had. you had, you would have seen this paragraph that there _ had. you had, you would have seen this paragraph that there was - had. you had, you would have seen this paragraph that there was a - this paragraph that there was a complete absence to the necessary, of the _ complete absence to the necessary, of the necessary electrification, that there was a complete absence of any understanding that the threat to the united kingdom was of that magnitude. as you have described, a massive _ magnitude. as you have described, a massive threat. would you not have picked _ massive threat. would you not have picked up _ massive threat. would you not have picked up the phone and said to somebody in downing street, you have completely— somebody in downing street, you have completely failed to understand the significance of this threat? the emergency that this constitutes? the magnitude _ emergency that this constitutes? the magnitude of this crisis? | emergency that this constitutes? the magnitude of this crisis?— magnitude of this crisis? i think that the response _ magnitude of this crisis? i think that the response and - magnitude of this crisis? i think that the response and you, - magnitude of this crisis? i think that the response and you, i - magnitude of this crisis? i think i that the response and you, i think you have seen the toing and froing, was to debate which hundreds and thousands was the correct hundreds and thousands, which did not strike me as material, but i was not aware of it at the time. it is neither here nor there. is of it at the time. it is neither here nor there.— of it at the time. it is neither here nor there. , . . ., here nor there. is that reference to the text messages _ here nor there. is that reference to the text messages between - here nor there. is that reference to the text messages between certain chris wormald?— the text messages between certain chris wormald? yes, and it's a chris wormald was _ chris wormald? yes, and it's a chris wormald was trying _ chris wormald? yes, and it's a chris wormald was trying to _ chris wormald? yes, and it's a chris wormald was trying to push - chris wormald? yes, and it's a chris wormald was trying to push others. | wormald was trying to push others. he was the person that was pushing on this... the point i'm making here is that this is done like the system is that this is done like the system is not designed to understand the threat, even when it is top of the national register, where it is a health or other natural phenomena, in fact, but let's stick to pandemics because what did you make thatis pandemics because what did you make that is what this inquiry is about. —— because that is what this is about. -- because that is what this is about. ., . ., ., about. the toing and froing, to understand _ about. the toing and froing, to understand the _ about. the toing and froing, to understand the degree, - about. the toing and froing, to understand the degree, the . about. the toing and froing, to - understand the degree, the magnitude of the _ understand the degree, the magnitude of the massive threat, there was a hugely— of the massive threat, there was a hugely important system... was there a failure, _ hugely important system... was there a failure, was there not? hugely important system. .. was there a failure, was there not?— a failure, was there not? there was a failure, was there not? there was a big question. _ a failure, was there not? there was a big question, about— a failure, was there not? there was a big question, about if— a failure, was there not? there was a big question, about if there - a failure, was there not? there was a big question, about if there a - a big question, about if there a difference as to what would have transpired, because i don't think we need to draw that line to family, but i certainly think that it would have been something which... let me be mealy—mouthed about it, under ideal circumstances, there would have been a different response. for educational training, have been a different response. for educationaltraining, how would have been a different response. for educational training, how would you change _ educational training, how would you change the — educational training, how would you change the approach _ educational training, how would you change the approach to _ educational training, how would you change the approach to a _ educational training, how would you change the approach to a terrorist . change the approach to a terrorist threat _ change the approach to a terrorist threat in — change the approach to a terrorist threat in a — change the approach to a terrorist threat in a natural— change the approach to a terrorist threat in a natural habitat? - change the approach to a terrorist threat in a natural habitat? [- change the approach to a terrorist threat in a natural habitat? i would start out with _ threat in a natural habitat? i would start out with the _ threat in a natural habitat? i would start out with the level _ threat in a natural habitat? i would start out with the level of - threat in a natural habitat? i would start out with the level of damage | start out with the level of damage that the uk would sustain, and start from that, rather than which type of threat it is that we are talking about? because the terrorist threat, for example, threat in a generic sense, ratherthan for example, threat in a generic sense, rather than more narrowly, i think that it... the people in the security apparatus in at number 10 and in other areas, security apparatus in at number 10 and in otherareas, cabinet security apparatus in at number 10 and in other areas, cabinet office, either kind of work that, for example, the uk health security agency does, with the same degree of interest and importance, as they would view, rightly, mi5, special branch, all these kinds of things? and my personal view is, i don't think they do. i think the should be seen as national security problems when they are on this scale, but on a small incident, i think it is perfectly reasonable to take it differently. if we're talking about something is clearly going to have an impact across the whole of government, including very obviously on the economy, in addition to substantial loss of life, education, all these kinds of things, then i think there is a strong argument for saying, why do we not put them, in a sense, on an equal footing, saying, why do we not put them, in a sense, on an equalfooting, in saying, why do we not put them, in a sense, on an equal footing, in terms of the degree of impact they will have on society?— of the degree of impact they will have on society? how do you give them a foot _ have on society? how do you give them a foot in? _ have on society? how do you give them a foot in? is _ have on society? how do you give them a foot in? is at _ have on society? how do you give them a foot in? is at the - have on society? how do you give them a foot in? is at the question of training, — them a foot in? is at the question oftraining. or— them a foot in? is at the question of training, or is _ them a foot