i will end up rambling on, the let me give you the headline view. the first thing is to have a chief of staff in number ten who does the organisational, structural role. if you think about how precious every minute is of the prime minister's time, and we accept it is finite, how you organise that time authoritatively. ten times as many people want to see the prime minister or one that part of his or her time than is physically possible, and that is really important role. —— want that part of his or her under borisjohnson, i thought he was in there as a sort of eminence agrees, a wise pair of hands. in terms of dominic cummings, thatis hands. in terms of dominic cummings, that is not why he was there, whatever the title. —— eminence grise. he was there to drive forward delivery, and was certainly well disposed and well—suited to this, trying amidst the daily hustle and bustle of events brought up by the media, whatever was the issue of the day, take a hard step back and try to look strategically, and i think that was the intention of his role. and i also thought, and you will come onto this, in terms of diagnosis, quite a few of the things that he diagnose that were wrong, i think he was right about, and actually, the pandemic was a proving ground for some of those things, like data in whitehall, for example, like data in whitehall, for example, like accountability in relation to the brilliant civil servants we have. i will not delve too much into that until you lead me there, but equally, i was six years in a civil servant as a foreign office lawyer, and have very fond memories not only of my time as a civil servant, but also of the professionalism there. you are not talking to someone who is down on the civil service by design. and what you are looking for in my view, and i think sp ads, including the most senior ones like dominic cummings, were trying to form this synergy between the role civil servants play, advice, checking, and fundamentally executing policy, and ministerial accountability to the public for those decisions. i don't think any government gets this perfectly, but you are looking for that synthesis. spads and dominic cummings are therefore a particular purpose, and i think that is critical. that therefore a particular purpose, and i think that is critical.— i think that is critical. that is an answer about _ i think that is critical. that is an answer about what _ i think that is critical. that is an answer about what they - i think that is critical. that is an answer about what they might i i think that is critical. that is an - answer about what they might have been therefore in principle. but lete— been therefore in principle. but let's talk— been therefore in principle. but let's talk about mr cummings in practice — let's talk about mr cummings in practice i— let's talk about mr cummings in practice. i will read you one statement from mrjavid to present a witness _ statement from mrjavid to present a witness statement. i felt the elected _ witness statement. i felt the elected prime minister was not in charge _ elected prime minister was not in charge of— elected prime minister was not in charge of what was happening in his name _ charge of what was happening in his name and _ charge of what was happening in his name and was largely content with mr cummings— name and was largely content with mr cummings running the government. do you agree _ cummings running the government. do you agree with that? no, _ you agree with that? no, i_ you agree with that? no, i don't, you agree with that? no, idon't, but you agree with that? no, i don't, but let me say at the outset, and i don't say this as a disparagement on this committee or this inquiry, but there is a whole circus that can be built up in the media and elsewhere around the internal battles between individuals, and some of that is natural and healthy. if you have tensions between civil servants, between civil servants and spads, and all of those and ministers, and of course between ministers. by the way, i have worked closely with sajid javid, and indeed worked for him when he was housing minister. i like him, and i think he is a great decision maker in the wayjust described. so i have no beef with mr javid. but equally, i don't think thatis javid. but equally, i don't think that is quite right. i think dominic cummings, certainly on diagnosis, but also trying to galvanise direction of travel, was much needed, some grit in the oyster. i think if you look at some of the things he said, we may come onto this, but i think this covers the osmosis between professionals from outside the government in government. funnily enough, chris whitty and patrick vallance are great examples of this, when it came to the vaccine trials and the rest of it. having someone who has not only been a scientist who knows how government works, but also has been a major multinational taking a drug from trials to conclusion is just gold dust. i think chris whitty was superb as well. one of the things dominic cummings had observed is that sometimes, whitehall can feel like a closed shop, and so i want to give you a sense in which he correctly identified some of the structural challenges without getting into some of the he said, she said, frankly soap opera of westminster bubble politics. the question arising about whether boris johnson was a puppet, i'm afraid i don't find that a serious allegation. i think borisjohnson certainly relied on his key advisers. by the way, i think you have to do if you want to get through the work, particularly in the pandemic. i don't think looking back at the prime minister's past or present, if you look at theresa may or tony blair in the role of his chief of staff, director of communications, it is natural. if you present me with something in a specific scenario, i am happy to comment on it. and boris, just like anyone else who occupies an incredible role, and ifeel some empathy with anyone who has done the job of prime minister, because i did it for a month, and job of prime minister, because i did it fora month, and i job of prime minister, because i did it for a month, and i think it made me a better secretary of state, because i can see the pressures that the prime minister has to deal with, but you constantly have this challenge of wanting to control the levers that affect government policy but also knowing that to run an effective government, you need to delegate, and of course, you should delegate, and of course, you should delegate fundamentally through your secretaries of state and ministers, but you also delegate with advice and reliance on your special advisers, just as you do through senior members of the civil service. that is natural and proper, and i just don't accept the characterisation that there was some sort of puppet regime. let's move on, mr raab, and look at the early— let's move on, mr raab, and look at the early months of the pandemic. before _ the early months of the pandemic. before we — the early months of the pandemic. before we do, can i issue another assurance as i did yesterday? mr raab, when we are looking at whether or not there was a toxic atmosphere, it is not from some prurient interest that we want to hear rude words or anything, it is that we want to see whether there was something wrong in the decision—making process. i decision—making process. i understand and respect that. but we also know that there is and, if you like, parallel soap opera in the media that will play out. i media that will play out. i understand. i _ media that will play out. i understand. i want - media that will play out. i understand. i want to - media that will play out. i | understand. i want to give media that will play out. i - understand. i want to give you honest answers, _ understand. i want to give you honest answers, candid - understand. i want to give you - honest answers, candid examples, the best evidence they can for the bereaved, and fundamentally, this is a lessons learned exercise. i want us to understand where we have just got political noise and where we have substantive issues, and try and assist inquiries as best i can. thank you. assist inquiries as best i can. thank yon-— thank you. let's turn to the chronology. _ thank you. let's turn to the chronology, mr _ thank you. let's turn to the chronology, mr raab. - thank you. let's turn to the chronology, mr raab. your| thank you. let's turn to the - chronology, mr raab. your witness statement — chronology, mr raab. your witness statement sets out in some detail what _ statement sets out in some detail what you — statement sets out in some detail what you were being told, what you were doing — what you were being told, what you were doing in the first few weeks of 2020 _ were doing in the first few weeks of 2020 i_ were doing in the first few weeks of 2020 i am — were doing in the first few weeks of 2020. lam really were doing in the first few weeks of 2020. i am really talking about january— 2020. i am really talking about january and very early february here, _ january and very early february here, but — january and very early february here, but we may come back to some of this— here, but we may come back to some of this detait~ — here, but we may come back to some of this detail. is it fair to say at least _ of this detail. is it fair to say at least two — of this detail. is it fair to say at least two of the things you were principally concerned within that regarding the pandemic were first of all amendments to the uk travel advice _ all amendments to the uk travel advice for— all amendments to the uk travel advice for china, considering whether— advice for china, considering whether or not to make amendments and over— whether or not to make amendments and over time whether or not to make amendments and overtime making whether or not to make amendments and over time making those amendments, and also dealing with various— amendments, and also dealing with various issues regarding the repatriation of british nationals? yes, _ repatriation of british nationals? yes. to— repatriation of british nationals? yes, to the extent that myjob and role covered the pandemic there is a whole string of other things, every crisis, and you can imagine what it was like then compared to now. yes, and i think i was clearing my question— yes, and i think i was clearing my question i— yes, and i think i was clearing my question i wasjust asking yes, and i think i was clearing my question i was just asking you about those _ question i was just asking you about those matters. question i was 'ust asking you about those matters.— question i was “ust asking you about those matters.— those matters. yes, and the other thint , those matters. yes, and the other thin , ifi those matters. yes, and the other thing. if i may _ those matters. yes, and the other thing. if i may say. _ those matters. yes, and the other thing, if i may say, and _ those matters. yes, and the other thing, if i may say, and travel- thing, if i may say, and travel advice, trying to explain throughout government, which may be helpful just to echo here, the difference between travel advice and changes that are made to it, compared to, for example, border restrictions, and that these are different decisions for different purposes, naturally, were legally constrained. i'm sure we will flesh this out. in the way that that took place. but yes, they do that very carefully, along with taking advice from the cmo and others on that. you also detail, mr — cmo and others on that. you also detail, mr raab, _ cmo and others on that. you also detail, mr raab, that _ cmo and others on that. you also detail, mr raab, that of— cmo and others on that. you also detail, mr raab, that of the - cmo and others on that. you also detail, mr raab, that of the two l detail, mr raab, that of the two cobra — detail, mr raab, that of the two cobra meetings that took place in january— cobra meetings that took place in january that we have heard some detail— january that we have heard some detail about, you did not attend the first meeting, but sent one of your ministers — first meeting, but sent one of your ministers to— first meeting, but sent one of your ministers to attend that meeting, but you _ ministers to attend that meeting, but you did attend the second meeting — but you did attend the second meeting on the 29th ofjanuary. i want _ meeting on the 29th ofjanuary. i want to— meeting on the 29th ofjanuary. i want to move a week or so forward in the chronology, because the inquiry has heard _ the chronology, because the inquiry has heard about a meeting that took place _ has heard about a meeting that took place on _ has heard about a meeting that took place on the 4th of february between the prime _ place on the 4th of february between the prime minister and chris whitty, the prime minister and chris whitty, the chief— the prime minister and chris whitty, the chief medical officer. as far as we know. — the chief medical officer. as far as we know, this was not a meeting that you were _ we know, this was not a meeting that you were at — we know, this was not a meeting that you were at. you may not have heard anything _ you were at. you may not have heard anything about it. that was one of the questions i was going to ask you _ the questions i was going to ask you but — the questions i was going to ask you. but what we have heard is, first— you. but what we have heard is, first of— you. but what we have heard is, first of all. — you. but what we have heard is, first of all, this was the first time — first of all, this was the first time that— first of all, this was the first time that chris whitty briefed the prime _ time that chris whitty briefed the prime minister relating to covid, and in _ prime minister relating to covid, and in summary, what chris whitty told the _ and in summary, what chris whitty told the prime minister was that there _ told the prime minister was that there was— told the prime minister was that there was a reasonable chance that there _ there was a reasonable chance that there would be a pandemic in this country— there would be a pandemic in this country involving between 100000 and 300,000 _ country involving between 100000 and 300,000 deaths if the covid—19, which _ 300,000 deaths if the covid—19, which was — 300,000 deaths if the covid—19, which was then in china, spread internationally and became a pandemic, and we have heard from chris— pandemic, and we have heard from chris whitty that that range, the 100,000 — chris whitty that that range, the 100,000 - 300,000, was not chris whitty that that range, the 100,000 — 300,000, was not presented to the _ 100,000 — 300,000, was not presented to the prime — 100,000 — 300,000, was not presented to the prime minister as a sort of format, _ to the prime minister as a sort of formal, reasonable worst—case scenario — formal, reasonable worst—case scenario. they were intended as an indication— scenario. they were intended as an indication of— scenario. they were intended as an indication of the seriousness of the situation _ indication of the seriousness of the situation if— indication of the seriousness of the situation if a pandemic of this new infection— situation if a pandemic of this new infection were to emerge. i'm sure you would — infection were to emerge. i'm sure you would agree with me, first of all, you would agree with me, first of all. that— you would agree with me, first of all, that that was a very grave piece — all, that that was a very grave piece of— all, that that was a very grave piece of advice that chris whitty was giving to the prime minister. of course — was giving to the prime minister. of course it is, yes. may i ask whether you were aware of that meeting or what chris whitty had conveyed to the prime minister at yt? _ at yt? i- at yt? i can't et yt? — i can't recollect, but et ytt — i can't recollect, but it et yt? — i can't recollect, but it is et ytt — i can't recollect, but it is not remotely unusual that i would not have been at that meeting. no, i am not suggesting have been at that meeting. no, iam not suggesting it have been at that meeting. no, i am not suggesting it was, have been at that meeting. no, iam not suggesting it was, i no, lam not suggesting it was, i 'ust no, lam not suggesting it was, i just want— no, lam not suggesting it was, i just want to _ no, lam not suggesting it was, i just want to understand whether you were or— just want to understand whether you were or whether you had understood it at the _ were or whether you had understood it at the time. let's - it at the time. let's go, if we may come paragraph 58 of— let's go, if we may come paragraph 58 of your— let's go, if we may come paragraph 58 of your witness statements on page _ 58 of your witness statements on page 18~ — 58 of your witness statements on page 18. you describe there that in fact, on— page 18. you describe there that in fact, on the — page 18. you describe there that in fact, on the day of that meeting, you went — fact, on the day of that meeting, you went on a prearranged trip, undertaking your official duties as foreign— undertaking your official duties as foreign secretary to australia, japan, — foreign secretary to australia, japan, singapore, malaysia, and you were gone— japan, singapore, malaysia, and you were gone for about a week, as we can see _ were gone for about a week, as we can see there. and i think it is also _ can see there. and i think it is also right— can see there. and i think it is also right to say that later in february. _ also right to say that later in february, after your return from that trip, — february, after your return from that trip, you went on a family holiday— that trip, you went on a family holiday or— that trip, you went on a family holiday or a personal trip skiing, is that— holiday or a personal trip skiing, is that right give a that holiday or a personal trip skiing, is that right give a— is that right give a that is correct- _ correct. in fairness, if you are taking the whole chronology, and this is the life of any modern foreign secretary, i was in brussels first week of january, secretary, i was in brussels first week ofjanuary, in the us and canada the second, third week, or around the same time, i am in paris... i around the same time, i am in paris... , , , ., paris... i will 'ust interrupt you, because paris... i will 'ust interrupt you, heeeusewe— paris... i willjust interrupt you, because we have _ paris... i willjust interrupt you, because we have limited - paris... i willjust interrupt you, | because we have limited time... paris... i willjust interrupt you, - because we have limited time... yes, but i think it — because we have limited time... yes, but i think it is _ because we have limited time... yes, but i think it is important, _ because we have limited time... yes but i think it is important, because i think i know when you are going with this, just to briefly say, i went to australia, japan, singapore and malaysia, vital countries for the uk's foreign policy, and as it turns out, the relationships over covid, and the first week of march, i was on the way back to istanbul and saudi arabia. that is thejob of any foreign secretary. don't worry, i don't think there was a suggestion you were on jollies, mr raab. just wait for the question and thenit raab. just wait for the question and then it will be clear. the raab. just wait for the question and then it will be clear.— then it will be clear. the question i want to ask _ then it will be clear. the question i want to ask you, _ then it will be clear. the question i want to ask you, mr _ then it will be clear. the question i want to as