seen as something that can be ignored, you see, i do not use the phrase lockdown lightly, but i believe londoners must be told to stay home unless they are an essential worker or buying food or collecting medication from a pharmacist. alongside this, there must be clear reassurances. at that point you are advocating for what became known as a monthly lockdown. —— as mandatory lockdown. next page, one more paragraph, you see at the end of the letter, alternatively, if you insist on continuing on the same course, by inference that means not adopting a mandatory lockdown, i would be left with no choice but to speak directly to londoners with a tougher message if it means thousands of peoples lives could be saved. what do you mean, you are indicating that if he does not do what you are

asking of him, you will take a different course? what were you proposing they are exactly? in crisis it is important there is one message being given to citizens, otherwise that can lead to confusion. my frustration at the lack of clarity from the government's messaging, don't use public transport, but go to work, and so forth, was leading to confusion. the point i was trying to get across was, if it was the case, i knew this from a conversation i had had on thursday, if it is the case you yourself for a variety of reasons don't want to have a stricter message, i will say to londoners, you know, do certain things to save your lives. as we have explored, it would not have been open to you to order a mandatory lockdown itself. what you are describing is, departing from the government's messaging, you

would be seeing something different to the governments, you would be encouraging londoners to do more by way of staying at home and so on, than the national gamut was telling them. yes. i have very limited statutory powers, for the reasons you have said. . . , . ., ., , said. that was a letter that was sent by e-mail _ said. that was a letter that was sent by e-mail to _ said. that was a letter that was sent by e-mail to the _ said. that was a letter that was sent by e-mail to the prime - said. that was a letter that was - sent by e-mail to the prime minister sent by e—mail to the prime minister on that sunday. and it is right that you spoke to the prime minister on the telephone later that day? that is right. now, this is a similar transcript, are you able to help us with who wrote this? this was written by dr of operations in my office —— director of operations. wash your listing into the core? she was. you can have more than two people on a call, downing street has a switch, they can

connect more than two people. this was of notes taken by your official of a call between you and mrjohnson on that day? that is right. and we can see there was a discussion which continued to debate from your letter, because we can see the first line of mrjohnson said he had seen that letter, one of the things that is notable about this conversation is mrjohnson repeatedly expresses concern about economic costs of lockdown. scroll down a little. we see the entry seeing, bj down a little. we see the entry seeing, b] will talk to team overnight, we can see at the end of that entry, he is seeing this come at great economic cost, scroll down at great economic cost, scroll down a little further. the entry started, it is better if we can coordinate as much as possible. again, he goes on

to say, there is a trade—off, we can'tjust to say, there is a trade—off, we can't just completely screw up the economy stop and then still further, down to the next page, that first entry at the top, mrjohnson is a saying, we don't want to cripple the economy. i will ask about that in a minute. but more generally, was it to your understanding at this stage, on the sandy, that mrjohnson still has not decided on his own mind whether to take that step of imposing a mandatory lockdown? that is right. these repeated references to the economy, does that give as a clue as to what mrjohnson was thinking on that day? you will see from contemporaneous meetings, i raise the issue i was concerned about those on the hours

contracts, the gig economy. i suggested a sub—cobra to deal with the economy. i was also cognisant of the economy. i was also cognisant of the impact of the economy. a lot of londoners at this stage had already lost their lives. i think 148 londoners had lost their lives by this sunday, the point i was trying to get across to the prime minister, the link between lives and livelihoods, had we got a grip of the virus earlier, had an earlier lockdown, in my view it would be shorter, had less of an impact on the economy. we will come back to this point in the context of the debates later in the context of the debates later in the year. but tell us what your understanding was of how the discussion was left at the end of this call? had mrjohnson made his mind up, orwas he this call? had mrjohnson made his mind up, or was he seeing he would reflect further and let you know? it

is quite clear, you will see from the last four retractions, he was considering what i had said, he has not been persuaded to points i was making stop it ends by saying, let us speak again tomorrow. did you in fact speak again the next morning? we know that the next day, the end of the day mrjohnson made his announcement, but that the two of you speak again, or can you not remember? i of you speak again, or can you not remember?— remember? i suspect by the next mornin: remember? i suspect by the next morning we _ remember? i suspect by the next morning we would _ remember? i suspect by the next morning we would have - remember? i suspect by the next morning we would have known i remember? i suspect by the next. morning we would have known there was a cobra taking place that day, which may be the reason why we didn't speak. in any event, it is right, that it was the next day after the cobra that the announcement was made about mandatory lockdown to come into force. . , force. that is right. let me _ force. that is right. let me move - force. that is right. let me move on, i | force. that is right. - let me move on, i have got a force. that is right. _ let me move on, i have got a couple of shortish series of questions to ask you before we have a break.

following the imposition of the lockdown there were concerns about the availability and the way, the availability of ppe within london, and the way in which it was being passed out, allocated, to the workers who needed it. if we look at paragraph 292, you address this issue there, page 64. as you observe, this issue will be the subject of another module in the inquiry, so i am not going to take into great detail about ppe. but as we can see, this was a matter that concerned you in the early months of the first lockdown. perhaps you could just explain the general terms of what you are understood to be the problem.

i was cheating a london leaders meeting, —— i was chairperson. that was those responsible for a lot of social care, they were telling me the charges they had in getting personal protective equipment to their social care workers, who were their social care workers, who were the front line looking after people in social care. in a separate conversation from those in the police service, those in transport, elsewhere, about what they should have, and there was a separate lobbying taking place from those in the health care profession at lack of popular ppe for their members as well. what it means is you have got lots of different people coming to me raising concerns, from health workers, two council leaders responsible for social care, to those bodies that i am responsible for, and others. i was articulated to the secretary of state the concerns that were being raised to

me, and asking for a proper response. one of the themes that appeared to be being raised, a logistical issue, not so much when the ppe was available, but how it was passed out to those who needed it. and we can see this referred to, in fact not in the u referred to in that paragraph, but slightly later one, this is a letter of 13th of april, you refer in it to an earlier letter of 31st of march and 8th of april. the first paragraph underneath the heading ppe, you refer to what you describe, a phrase that comes up twice in this

paragraph, inconsistent supply of ppe. was that an issue that you are concerned about both in march and as late as the 13th of april? absolutely. just to be clear, i was hearing stories about care workers doing diy ppe, because there is no ppe and some of these care homes. is this then an example if you raising these problems that you had heard through that sort of web of contacts that you had? absolutely. they're going into detail, work these problems resolved a new experience or did they carry on? they carried on for some time. at some stage later on we offered london fire brigade to take responsibility for logistics, so they would be sent a lot of the ppe, be told what it needs to go, and the nfb would organising croydon from where the ppe should go, sometime later.

one more topic, the question of face coverings. paragraph 170 of your statement, page 38. just to be clear, broad terms, when we speak of ppe we are talking about specialist kit provided to emergency services, health care staff, and so on. in contrast, this debate that you engage with about face coverings was really focused on ordinary people, not necessarily at all associated with the emergency services and health care staff, whether they should wear home—made or simple fabric face coverings. your question raises a really important point, which is there was understandable concern about finite ppe, that was being rationed as a consequence. i deliberately used the

word facemask where i could avoid it, because that would conflate finite resource, with something which can be made at home, which in itself will come to later on, can be helpful in stopping the virus spreading. yes, that is that distinction. we are on the right ground. as you say, this is something that you advocated for over sometime during the pandemic? the you advocated for over sometime during the pandemic?— you advocated for over sometime during the pandemic? the first time out to the government _ during the pandemic? the first time out to the government about - during the pandemic? the first time out to the government about this i during the pandemic? the first time i out to the government about this was in early april. i out to the government about this was in early april-— in early april. i will take that letter in a — in early april. i will take that letter in a moment. - letter in a moment. just to the starting point, you say that in the early stages of the pandemic, particularly before the first national lockdown, the effectiveness of waiting face covering as a general public health measure was unclear. ijust want covering as a general public health measure was unclear. i just want to ask you whether it was at that stage whether it was particularly unclear?

because in this paragraph, the paragraph that follows, you then recite a series of views of judgments made by individual scientists, scientific bodies, world health organization, who were all unanimous in the early stages that facemasks were not going to be a helpful tool, face coverings were not going to be helpful or useful in the context of this pandemic. that is riaht, the context of this pandemic. that is right. isn't _ the context of this pandemic. that is right, isn't it? _ the context of this pandemic. that is right, isn't it? that _ the context of this pandemic. twat is right, isn't it? that is very fair. this is the point, as the scientific knowledge evolves, as we discover more, because thankfully got the virus after others, we could see this working elsewhere, and learn from it. this is a really good example of, initially the view being face coverings don't really make much of a difference, very soon though, across the globe, and including in our very own sage on

zist including in our very own sage on 21st of april, the evidence changed, decisions of a government did not. in this early stage, as you recite, there was within the uk scientific community a consensus that they were not helpful. until april the 20th, yes. including, stac, the technical advice sale, this was london's own virgin —— your own version of sage. they provide a briefing note suggesting disadvantages outweigh advantages. that is fair. that was the for the letter that you just mentioned. let us look at that. you say this was

the first letter you wrote in this issue? prime minister was in hospital, dominic had taken over, dominic raab. . ., ., , dominic had taken over, dominic raab. . w, , .,, raab. indeed, dominic raab was takin: the raab. indeed, dominic raab was taking the place _ raab. indeed, dominic raab was taking the place of— raab. indeed, dominic raab was taking the place of the _ raab. indeed, dominic raab was taking the place of the primer i taking the place of the primer minister because of his illness. now, in the first line of this letter you refer their to the use of non—medical face coverings. letter you refer their to the use of non—medicalface coverings. does non—medical face coverings. does this non—medicalface coverings. does this pick up on the points already made switches that you were wanting to distinguish what we have been describing as face coverings from ppe style specialist equipment? the additional you may have been,

not a sensible use, i am saying to