a position which appears to have been agreed suggest this was not an open—ended debate which led to a consistent decision. there was the ability to be able to unwind or unpick a position which had already been reached. do you agree with both those propositions or neither? obviously i didn't write the e—mail, and i don't know precisely what it refers to. is it possible that i might have had a chat with the prime minister once a meeting wound up on my way back somewhere, of course that's possible. he might have said to me, that was interesting, i'm thinking x, as a result of it, i don't think anything is wrong with that. i don't recall, huddle or not, it might havejust that. i don't recall, huddle or not, it might have just been that. i don't recall, huddle or not, it might havejust been him giving me a sense of where his head was at that particular moment in time. and i don't think there is anything particularly untoward about that, to be honest. as i have talked previously about decision processes and ultimately there would be a final decision taken at an appropriate forum, it might well be that there had been an iterative process leading up to that but i don't think in and of itself that thatis don't think in and of itself that that is necessarily a bad thing and again i'm not entirely sure that this specifically refers to. you refer to the _ this specifically refers to. you refer to the fact _ this specifically refers to. you refer to the fact that - this specifically refers to. you refer to the fact that there might be an issue as to where his head is at, where the prime minister has been reaching in terms of his thinking. and i need to ask you, because of the evidence which has been given by his former cabinet secretaries, his former chief adviser, his former director of communications, also by, privately, his chief scientific adviser, he had tendency to back and via, to bear the impression of the last person who sat on him in terms of the debates that were raging in downing street, and that this led to a degree of chaos or to use sir patrick vallance's words, operational inefficiency. were you aware that his closest advisers had seemingly unanimously taken the view that there was a lack of efficiency, that there was a lack of efficiency, that there was a lack of efficiency, that the administration described privately as brutal and useless, criminally incompetent or operationally chaotic, was any other known to you? h0. operationally chaotic, was any other known to you?— known to you? no, i don't think any of those comments _ known to you? no, i don't think any of those comments were _ known to you? no, i don't think any of those comments were shared - known to you? no, i don't think any| of those comments were shared with me at the time. he made a point, though, as if debates raged. —— you made a point. i don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. it's right that there was a vigorous debate because these were incredibly consequential decisions of tens of millions of people. in all spheres, whether it was health, education, economic, whether it was long—term impacts, these were incredibly big decisions, the likes of which no prime minister had taken in decades, if ever, like this. so the fact that there was debate and that people are passionate about it and there were different points of view, is, a, unsurprising, and b, good because it would be worse if we were having this comment —— conversation and all the commentary was there was no debate whatsoever, it was alljust signed off straightforward, someone put a piece of paper, someone checked and that was the last of it, i think that would be far worse. i think it's good there was debate about these things. in terms of operational inefficiency, again, there is no perfect amount of deliberation versus speed that is a trade—off the prime minister only can make. it will be context —dependent, decision dependent, it is hard to generalise what the right amount of deliberative timers. as i have talked about the process, i don't think it's a problem that the prime minister gets advice from different people, mulls over it, tried out different arguments assuming there is the time to do that before coming to a final decision, i think there is a good thing that there debate is required when you are requiring —— dealing with these consequences. haifa when you are requiring -- dealing with these consequences. how often if at all did you _ with these consequences. how often if at all did you leave _ with these consequences. how often if at all did you leave number- with these consequences. how often if at all did you leave number 10 - if at all did you leave number 10 downing st after debating issues with the prime minister, perhaps in a bilateral and multilateral conversation, and been told that a decision had been reached, all that his view was x, to find out later that his view has changed or a decision had been unwound or unpicked? can you recall any such instances of that happening over this particularly fraught period from march through to october? i’m from march through to october? i'm sure it from march through to october? in sure it did. we make so many, many, many decisions over the course of two years. many decisions over the course of two yew-— many decisions over the course of two ears. ., ~ ., . . , ., , two years. you know which decisions are the most — two years. you know which decisions are the most important, _ two years. you know which decisions are the most important, we - two years. you know which decisions are the most important, we know. two years. you know which decisions| are the most important, we know the momentous decisions, mr sunak. did he change his mind when you had been given to understand that he had reached a view on the decisions that you and his closest advisers were debated at such ferocious length? again, ithink debated at such ferocious length? again, i think if you could be more specific, if we talk about the first... there were many many momentous decisions. that's why this is an imported piece of work which is an imported piece of work which is extensive. —— important piece of work. if we talk chronologically, the decisions around the first lockdown, i don't think that happened because, we haven't got into it yet and we haven't touched on the economic analysis which we will come to later, my strong recollection of those few weeks in march was that advice was put to the government, the prime minister, from sage and it was followed imminently in most cases if not all in the period. the advice changed in that period. the advice changed in that period but when the advice changed, the government didn't say, i'm going to do this and then changed, we got the advice of when we should implement self isolation, initially not to close schools or and mass events, things changed particularly on the 16th of march which is when the advice from sage changed particularly about the speed of implementation. again the prime minister reacted, schools closed and i think that was announced on the 18th because that was put before the committee at the time and that was acted on immediately on the same day, the 16th and the 18th the prime minister stood up on the same day and announce those decisions, and i think even up to the 19th of march the view from sage, from the chief medical officer, is that the existing measures that had been announced, if there were in their words 75% compliance, that should do the trick. and then it was clear that compliance wasn't high enough and further interventions had to be put in place. my strong recollection in that period of those decisions is there was not a comedy one thing and change our minds, it was just the government responding to the advice from our scientific advisers, the scientific advice changed and the government changed with it. i don't think there is, that's what the government did at the time. followed the advice of the scientists and didn't change its mind. mai; the advice of the scientists and didn't change its mind. may we take it, ou didn't change its mind. may we take it. you have — didn't change its mind. may we take it, you have referred _ didn't change its mind. may we take it, you have referred to _ didn't change its mind. may we take it, you have referred to the - didn't change its mind. may we take it, you have referred to the first - it, you have referred to the first lockdown decision by way of your answer, may we take it that the same position, the same position took place, the same position was reached in relation to later decisions for example road maps and easement, circuit breakers, package a, the tiers and so on and so forth, is there a consistent and clear position adopted by downing street after the debate that obviously took place, and decisions were not made which were then unpicked and there was a consistent approach adopted for those later periods? i was a consistent approach adopted for those later periods?— for those later periods? i think you 'ust for those later periods? i think you just named — for those later periods? i think you just named six _ for those later periods? i think you just named six different _ for those later periods? i think you just named six different decisionsl just named six different decisions all of which probably merit, and i'm sure we will have a fulsome discussion on each of them. i’m discussion on each of them. i'm askin: discussion on each of them. i'm asking you _ discussion on each of them. i'm asking you just generally, your impression as the chancellor, where you a chancellor in an administration in which there was an absence of clear consistent decision—making following full and robust debate, or was it your impression that decisions were being made properly, that there was a proper opportunity for everybody to have their say, and then the prime minister took decisions and stuck to them? which is it? i minister took decisions and stuck to them? which is it?— minister took decisions and stuck to them? which is it? i can only answer for m self them? which is it? i can only answer for myself in — them? which is it? i can only answer for myself in terms _ them? which is it? i can only answer for myself in terms of, _ them? which is it? i can only answer for myself in terms of, did _ them? which is it? i can only answer for myself in terms of, did everyone | for myself in terms of, did everyone have the ability they wanted to feed in ultimately, because i don't know the extent to which other cabinet ministers felt that they were sufficiently included or fed ministers felt that they were sufficiently included orfed in or met the prime minister, that the question for them. i have been consistently clear for my part i had that ability from the beginning and throughout to feed into decision—making, and as i said throughout, it's right that there was debate and discussion and debate, that's my general recollection, i know there were decisions there were made by the act, there was good debate and discussion as we went. unfortunately we were dealing with an unpredictable situation which people had not experienced before. did things have to iterate as we went along? of course they did and we will get onto that as we address each of those individual decisions you mentioned, each of those of course there would have been a period of iteration where you adjust to circumstances or facts as they changed. i don't think that is wrong and i think it's hard to generalise, but what we should do is go into each of those things in detail as i look forward to doing and i'm sure we will over the course of today. indie we will over the course of today. we will. the first lockdown decision was taken on the 23rd march. in your statement, you relay, as you said this morning, your general impression that the recommendations which were being made in public health terms were strongly supported, and there was a sense of, the sooner the better that they were implemented, because the majority of the advice, indeed the vast majority of the advice the government was receiving in those weeks of the ninth and 16th of march focused upon the public health considerations. the exponential nature of the growth curve, the damage that would be done and the ultimate collapse of the nhs, and of course the number of deaths, the mortality which would ensue. can you recall, mr sunak, yourtake ensue. can you recall, mr sunak, your take on ensue. can you recall, mr sunak, yourtake on an ensue. can you recall, mr sunak, your take on an recollection of the robustness of the data underpinning the proposition that the nhs would collapse? it was obviously debated ljy collapse? it was obviously debated by you and others at the meeting on monday 23rd, it was debated at all of the cobra and cabinet meetings hitherto, what was the understanding that you had? was it undoubtedly going to be the case that the nhs would collapse, or was it a case of, it is in peril, there are very grave concerns as to whether or not it will be overwhelmed or over topped, but we have got to see to what extent surge capacity and the heroic efforts of the nhs itself could save the day? where was the final line reached? i the day? where was the final line reached? .., �* the day? where was the final line reached? �* ,, . , the day? where was the final line reached? ,_ reached? i can't specifically recall the analysis _ reached? i can't specifically recall the analysis that _ reached? i can't specifically recall the analysis that was _ reached? i can't specifically recall the analysis that was presented. l reached? i can't specifically recall i the analysis that was presented. my overall recollections of this period, which may be helpfulfor context, were, obviously we were starting to get permission coming in about covid internationally. the general response was being led by dh, i think you will be familiar with the contain delay strategy, which is what we were advised by scientific experts to follow. the strategy was, as you said, to prevent the nhs from being overwhelmed. i vividly recall at the time the chief scientific adviser saying, and i think it's recorded in the minutes, that, you know, the strategy was not to completely suppress the disease. i think there was a misunderstanding about this. he was very explicit that that wouldn't work, and that would just lead to a later, second peak later in the airwhich lead to a later, second peak later in the air which did overwhelm the nhs so what they wanted to do was flatten the curve, change the epidemiology, and they were very concerned about going too early. the general advice as they were very worried about implementing these things too early, they said that in private in the meetings but also in public in press conferences. but you are right, increasingly the advice we were getting was the nhs was imminently in danger of being overwhelmed. incrementally new modelling was implement it, it came out on the 16th, which change the timing, the government acted on the 16th and the 18 as i said. i think chris whitty on about the 19th was clear that the decisions we had made having closed schools at that point were announced, if there was good compliance, should be sufficient, that turned out not to be the case and additional measures were implemented. i don't remember the specific analysis we were shown about the nhs being overwhelmed, i don't think i would have been in any position to challenge it, it was coming from the nhs at that moment. but how much of the debate on that monday revolves around an understanding of what the impact on the nhs might be? the reason i ask so that you can understand the genesis of the question, prime minister, is that there was a great deal of information about beds and icu beds and so on and how many would be needed and whether they would be needed and whether they would be needed and whether they would be overwhelmed and so on. but there was also a fair amount of information from the nhs as to what could be done by way of additional search capacity, whether the nhs would survive, whether it could survive, and given that ultimately the decision to lockdown rested at least capacity —— in part on what the impact on the nhs would likely be if that decision were not taken, we need to know to what extent the actuality of the impact was debated? was it taken as it said that there
Related Keywords
Prime Minister , Upshot , Page , Hoddle , Decision , Mpis , Risk , Minister , Prime , Points , Parks , Nothing , Sunak , Debate , Fact , Huddle , Reference , Unpicked , Weekend , Questions , Overfried , Two , Lockdown Decision , Ability , Word , Unwinding , Position , Meeting , E Mail , Propositions , Neither , Chat , It , Course , Anything , Way , Thinking X , Somewhere , Result , Head , Sense , Decision Processes , Thing , Process , Forum , Thatis Don T , Terms , Evidence , Thinking , Issue , Director Of Communications , Cabinet Secretaries , Impression , Him , Sat , Tendency , Person , Debates , Patrick Vallance , Advisers , Words , Inefficiency , Led , Chaos , Degree , Downing Street , 19th Of March The View , Administration , Black , Efficiency , Point , Comments , H0 , Decisions , People , Millions , Tens , Spheres , Health , Impacts , Education , Conversation , Comment , Points Of View , And B , Unsurprising , Is , Things , Piece , Someone , Commentary , Last , Paper , Alljust , Amount , Speed , Deliberation , Trade Off , Advice , Timers , Problem , Mulls , Consequences , Arguments , Haifa , Number , Issues , 10 , Number 10 Downing St , Sex , Instances , Mind , Important , Many , Yew , Tears , Length , Specific , First , Ithink , Lockdown , Work , We Haven T , Haven T , Government , Analysis , Recollection , Sage , Cases , 16th Of March , Schools , Self Isolation , Events , Didn T Say , 16 , Committee , Implementation , 18 , Measures , Chief Medical Officer , 19th Of March , 19 , Wasn T , Compliance , Place , Trick , Interventions , 75 , Minds , Comedy , One , Scientists , Didn T , Ou Didn T , Answer , Mai , Road Maps , Easement , Example , Relation , Package A , Circuit Breakers , Tiers , Discussion , Peach , Approach , Decisionsl , Dust , Merit , Askin , Six , Chancellor , Absence , Decision Making Following , Everyone , Everybody , Say , Opportunity , Question , Part , Felt , Ministers , Cabinet Ministers , Extent , Beginning , Orfed , Decision Making , The Act , Situation , Facts , Circumstances , Iteration , Generalise , Detail , Indie , 23rd March , 23 , Recommendations , Public Health , Statement , Majority , Ninth , Sense Of , Nhs , Damage , Mortality , Considerations , Growth Curve , Collapse , Deaths , Nature , Data Underpinning , Proposition , Robustness , Yourtake , Meetings , Understanding , Wall , Cabinet , Others , Monday 23rd , Ljy , The Cobra , Case , Peril , Concerns , Line , Surge Capacity , Efforts , The General , Recollections , Permission , Helpfulfor Context , Covid , Delay Strategy , Dh , Experts , Strategy , Saying , Hair , Disease , Misunderstanding , Lead , Wouldn T Work , Second Peak , Airwhich , Curve , Epidemiology , Modelling , Press Conferences , Public , Danger , Timing , Being , Impact , Genesis , Reason , Information , Deal , Beds , Icu , Search Capacity , Capacity , Actuality ,
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.