Sedwill says he had to remind Boris Johnson of importance of involving cabinet ministers in key decisions
Q: Do you think cabinet governance was undermined during Covid?
Sedwill says the attacks on cabinet did undermine its authority. But the formal decisions were taken in cabinet, he says.
He says he ensured decisions were properly minuted and properly taken.
Q: But there was tension between No 10 and cabinet, wasn’t there?
Sedwill says he did need to remind Boris Johnson of involving cabinet colleagues in the formulation of decisions.
I did need to remind him of the importance of involving Cabinet colleagues not just in the formal decision but formulation of that decision.
It is normal for a PM to talk to his team before a decision gets taken, he says.
Q: Why did you have to speak to the PM about this?
Sedwill says Helen MacNamara covered this in her evidence last week. During Brexit, ministers would go into cabinet meetings having not had the chance to read papers days in advance. They would only be shown documents in a reading room. This system was in place in response to leaks.
During Covid that precise system was not in place. But he says the PM did go into cabinet with a firm position of his own, and that affected the candour of cabinet decisions.
Key events
Covid inquiry chair suggests ministers should have focused more on possible death scenarios, not just worst case scenario
Keith quotes from the minutes of a cabinet meeting on 6 February 2020 saying Boris Johnson warned against over-reacting to the threat from Covid.
Sedwill says at this point the scientific advice was that the worst case scenario was still unlikely.
Heather Hallett, the chair, intervenes. She says if the worst case scenario was 800,000 deaths, that implies anything less than the worst case would still be very, very serious.
Sedwill accepts that. He says focusing just on the reasonable worst case scenario could be problematic.
Hallett asks if anyone told ministers not to focus on the reasonable worst case scenario, but to ask instead what the chances were of a large number of deaths.
Sedwill agrees with her point. He says ministers should have focused on likely and possible scenarios, not just the worst case scenarios.
They are now holding a 10-minute break.
Keith shows Sedwill an exchange that he has with Chris Wormald, permanent secretary at the Department of Health, in early February where Sedwill challenged the figures being given for possible deaths.
Sedwill says he cannot recall the details of this. But he was concerned about the worst case death toll numbers moving around hugely, making it harder for people to take them seriously.
He says the difference between 300,000 and 600,000 deaths would not have led to a difference in terms of the decision taken. But he says it would be easier to have confidence if the numbers if they did not keep changing.
Keith quotes from an email from Prof John Edmunds, the epidemiologist, saying that, given the speed at which the virus was spreading, contact tracing on its own was unlikely to make much difference.
Sedwill says the consequences of the lack of a contact tracing capability were not fully understood.
Q: None of the plans that were in place dealt with stopping the virus entering the UK or spreading. Was that understood?
Sedwill says the UK did not have the capability in place to do that. Countries in Asia, where borders were closed, did have that capability, he says. He goes on:
I wouldn’t claim to have had enough knowledge myself to know that that was a capability that was important, or indeed that it was missing.
Q: That capability was not a matter for debate at the top of government.
Sedwill accepts that. He says the capability needed to stop the virus could not have been constructed in the time available.
But there was a lot of discussion about delaying the spread of the virus (squashing the sombrero, as Boris Johnson put it).
Sedwill says he should ‘interrogated’ Covid plan supposed to be in place in February 2020 more carefully
Sedwill says at this point he thought that, if Covid did arrive in the UK, it would be possible to manage the extent of its spread, but that it would not be possible to stop it spreading at all.
My understanding from the briefings we had was that it might be possible to manage the spread of the virus, but that it was inevitable because no-one had immunity, that it would spread through the population.
During the first half of February scientists had a good understanding of the nature of the virus, and the number of deaths that might occur if it were allowed to spread. But there was also an assumption that plans were in place to stop this happening, he says.
He says he and others should have “interrogated” those plans “more carefully”.
Keith says the first Cobra meeting on Covid was held on 24 January, and another was held on 29 January.
He says Cobra was told on 29 January that there was a risk of the virus escaping from China, and that this would lead to Covid spreading in the UK.
Q: Did you accept that?
Sedwill says that this point this was just seen as a worst-case scenario. He says the chief medical office, Prof Chris Whitty, was only putting the probability of this at one in 10. By the end of February it was one in five, Sedwill says.
Sedwill says he initially resisted calls for Cobra meeting on Covid because he feared Hancock using it for PR reasons
Keith is only now asking about Covid. All the questions so far have been about process.
Sedwill says, when concerns about Covid arose, he did not agree to a meeting of the Cobra emergency committee taking place immediately. He wanted to ensure that the meeting was prepared for. And he was concerned that having a Cobra meeting might alarm people.
He says there had been a history of Cobra meetings being called “for communications purposes” – and not for decision making.
But, after two days, he was persuaded a Cobra meeting was necessary.
UPDATE: Sedwill said:
I felt that a Cobra which might have been convened primarily for communications purposes wasn’t wise. Two days later I was advised there was a genuine cross-government basis for it and I agreed.
Keith asked:
May we be plain please as to what you mean by communications purposes. Were you concerned that the Cobra was being called by the DHSC (the Department of Health and Social Care) for presentation purposes, that is to say to make a splash about the role of DHSC, perhaps its secretary of state (Matt Hancock), and that’s why you initially hesitated.
Sedwill replied: “That is a fair summary of my thinking.”
Sedwill says Johnson goverment was ‘more like an opposition’ coming into power because of Brexit process
Keith says he wants to ask about the efficacy of Boris Johnson’s administration.
Q: As a government coming into office, was it an experienced administration?
Sedwill says there were some very experienced ministers in it, like Michael Gove. Matt Hancock has been in cabinet for several years. There were others as well, he says.
But he says, overall, it was “more like an opposition party coming into power after a general election” because of the Brexit process.
Q: How focused was that administration on is own agenda?
Sedwill says that was its primary focus. The election was in December 2019, and at first the primary focus was on Brexit.
Sedwill suggests cabinet ministers have wider perspective, and more ‘grounded’ in what’s happening, than No 10 advisers
Q: Do you agree that cabinet is more “grounded” than a cabal of advisers in No 10?
Yes, says Sedwill. He says ministers are constituency MPs. That means they are exposed to the views of the public in a way that advisers are not. He says he always encouraged ministers to remember that.
Q: And the perspective that cabinet could bring was of extra value?
Yes, says Sedwill.
Sedwill says he had to remind Boris Johnson of importance of involving cabinet ministers in key decisions
Q: Do you think cabinet governance was undermined during Covid?
Sedwill says the attacks on cabinet did undermine its authority. But the formal decisions were taken in cabinet, he says.
He says he ensured decisions were properly minuted and properly taken.
Q: But there was tension between No 10 and cabinet, wasn’t there?
Sedwill says he did need to remind Boris Johnson of involving cabinet colleagues in the formulation of decisions.
I did need to remind him of the importance of involving Cabinet colleagues not just in the formal decision but formulation of that decision.
It is normal for a PM to talk to his team before a decision gets taken, he says.
Q: Why did you have to speak to the PM about this?
Sedwill says Helen MacNamara covered this in her evidence last week. During Brexit, ministers would go into cabinet meetings having not had the chance to read papers days in advance. They would only be shown documents in a reading room. This system was in place in response to leaks.
During Covid that precise system was not in place. But he says the PM did go into cabinet with a firm position of his own, and that affected the candour of cabinet decisions.
Q: Is the cabinet the ultimate decision-making body in government?
Yes, says Sedwill.
But he says it is a matter of judgment what decisions get taken to cabinet.
Q: Were the Covid-O and Covid-S committees full cabinet committees?
Yes, says Sedwill.
These were the two committees dealing with Covid operations and Covid strategy.
He says, as cabinet committees, they could take decisions on behalf of the full cabinet.
Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, is questioning Sedwill.
Q: Where there concerns about you doing both jobs – national security adviser and cabinet secretary?
Sedwill says he delegated more responsibilities than he otherwise would have done. And he says this was never intended to be a permanent arrangement.
He also says he was only replicating responsibilities that the PM himself had.
He says there was an assumption that, when he moved on, the roles would be split again.
Q: Is it fair to say the arrangement was not wise?
Sedwill says the arrangement “made sense in the circumstances at the time”.
Former cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill gives evidence to Covid inquiry
Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary, has just started giving evidence to the Covid inquiry. There is a live feed here.
Yesterday the hearing was shown an exchange of messages between Sedwill and Simon Case, who succeeded him as cabinet secretary, in which Case said he had “never seen a bunch of people less well equipped to run the country” than Boris Johnson and his team.
Sedwill was originally national security adviser and he became cabinet secretary, combining the job with the security post, when Jeremy Heywood, his predecessor, fell ill. At the time, and afterwards, many people felt merging the two jobs like this was not ideal.
Last week the inquiry saw evidence showing that on Thursday 12 March, less than a week before Boris Johnson ordered people to stay at home, Sedwill was still pushing the “herd immunity” approach to Covid.
The inquiry also seen evidence showing Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s chief adviser, being insulting and abusive about Sedwill in private. Last week Cummings was asked about messages he sent saying Sedwill was “out to lunch” and “hasn’t a scooby (clue) what’s going on”. In response, Cummings claimed he always had a good relationship with Sedwill.
The Labour MP Zarah Sultana has tabled an amendment to the king’s speech debate motion saying the government should “urgently press all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire, the immediate and unconditional release of hostages, an end to the total siege of Gaza to allow full access to medical supplies, food, fuel, electricity and water, and a guarantee that international humanitarian law is upheld”. It has been signed by 12 other Labour MPs, mostly from the left, and some MPs from other opposition parties.
As a backbench amendment, it is very unlikely to be put to a vote when the debate ends next week.
Former Tory chair Sayeeda Warsi says Starmer right to say Braverman unfit to be home secretary
Sayeeda Warsi, a former Conservative party chair, has said that Keir Starmer was right to criticise Suella Braverman, the home secretary, in his speech in the Commons yesterday. She has also accused Braverman of increasing the prospect of rightwing extremists trying to disrupt the pro-Palestinian demonstration planned for Saturday.
Warsi posted these messages on X.
“The job of the police is hard enough already without the Home Secretary using it as a platform for her own political ambitions”
We all need to say this
The Home Sec through her rhetoric & culture wars makes our country unsafe -she is dangerous & divisive and not fit for office
“The job of the police is hard enough already without the Home Secretary using it as a platform for her own political ambitions”
We all need to say this
The Home Sec through her rhetoric & culture wars makes our country unsafe -she is dangerous & divisive and not fit for office https://t.co/y20Xtbp6EX— Sayeeda Warsi (@SayeedaWarsi) November 8, 2023
Labour says Gaza ceasefire would help Hamas after frontbencher resigns over Starmer’s stance
Good morning. It took a month, but Keir Starmer has now received the first resignation from a Labour frontbencher over his stance on the Israel-Hamas war. At council level several dozen councillors have already resigned, either because of the LBC interview Starmer gave shortly after the war started in which he appeared to back Israel’s decision to cut off food, water and power supplies to Gaza, and partly because Starmer is refusing to back calls for a ceasefire. Many members and supporters are also furious, particular in constituencies with large Muslim populations. Starmer has changed his tone a lot since the LBC interview, and taken time to defend his position at length. But Imran Hussain’s resignation is a moment of peril because it could encourage other frontbenchers who share his concerns to quit too. Hussain says a ceasefire is “essential to ending the bloodshed”.
Here is Aletha Adu’s story about the resignation.
This morning Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, was giving interviews, and this is what she said on the Today programme when asked what she would says to Hussain. She replied:
We all want to see more humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. We want to see humanitarian pauses. And of course, it’s important that Israel upholds international law. I do recognise the strength of feeling across our party on it …
The events that we saw on 7 October were sickening acts of utter barbarity and brutality. But every day on our screens we also see the suffering of Palestinian children and it is right that everything possible is done to alleviate that plight.
Asked what Labour calling for humanitarian pauses, but not for a ceasefire, she said:
(A ceasefire) would freeze the conflict in time. It risks allowing Hamas to regroup and to perpetuate further terrible atrocities that they’ve said that they want the opportunity to do. That humanitarian pause to allow for extra time for aid to get into Gaza is in line with what the US are calling for.
Labour HQ is saying the same thing. This is how a spokesperson responded to Hussain’s resignation.
Labour fully understands calls for a ceasefire. Everybody wants to see an end to the shocking images we are seeing in Gaza. We need to see all hostages released and aid getting to those most in need.
But a ceasefire now will only freeze this conflict and would leave hostages in Gaza and Hamas with the infrastructure and capability to carry out the sort of attack we saw on October 7.
International law must be followed at all times and innocent civilians must be protected. Labour is calling for humanitarian pauses in the fighting.
This is the best and most realistic way to address the humanitarian emergency in Gaza and is a position shared by our major allies.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9am: Lucy Frazer, the culture secretary, takes part in an LBC phone-in.
Morning: Rishi Sunak is visiting a school in Lincolnshire.
10am: Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
11.30am: Andrew Mitchell, the developmen minister, is due to give a statement to MPs about the Israel-Gaza war.
Around 12.30pm: Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, and Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, open the second day of debate on the king’s speech.
1.30pm: Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, speaks at an Institute for Government event.
2pm: Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, gives evidence to the Commons energy security and net zero committee.
2pm: Justin Tomlinson, the former minister for the disabled, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry.
2.30pm: Amanda Spielman, head of Ofsted, gives evidence to the Commons culture committee.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
