you say this was 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 the government, review that, in light of what i go on to say. just to finish off this point, if we could briefly look at the end of this letter, on the next page, the paragraph starting, i recognise, you are there explicitly recognising that there is an issue about preserving specialist equipment for those in the nhs and other services who need it, you are expressly not talking about competing with them for these face coverings. spot on. exactly. back to the first page, most of this letter is taken up with you referring to other countries where the practice is different, countries where, in one way or another, face coverings among the general population might have been encouraged in some different

settings than others. that is right. our own research had shown, others may macro from cities we were speaking to, they were using face coverings, if you have got the virus and are asymptomatic it prevents the drop it spreading to someone who may catch it. also in april there were articles in the bmj and lancet talking about how useful face coverings can be. if we and lancet talking about how useful face coverings can be.— face coverings can be. if we 'ust scroll down. �* face coverings can be. if we 'ust scroll down, you i face coverings can be. if we 'ust scroll down, you refer �* face coverings can be. if we 'ust scroll down, you refer to h face coverings can be. if we just scroll down, you refer to the - scroll down, you refer to the austrian government, then there are a series of examples taken from the united states, and the last one, canada. . , , united states, and the last one, canada. ., , , u, canada. have i missed recorded? i thou~ht canada. have i missed recorded? i thought you _ canada. have i missed recorded? i thought you said _ canada. have i missed recorded? i thought you said your _ canada. have i missed recorded? i thought you said your expert - thought you said your expert advisory— thought you said your expert advisory body said on the 6th of april— advisory body said on the 6th of april that — advisory body said on the 6th of april that the disadvantages outweighed the benefits? that is riuht. outweighed the benefits? that is right- there _ outweighed the benefits? that is right. there are _ outweighed the benefits? that is right. there are two _ outweighed the benefits? that is right. there are two things - right. there are two things happening. one is the evidence given by professor plant, two is the work

of stac, which is the london sage for short hand. i was asking the government to review, stac is not quite sage, i was asking the government to review advice from sage based on these things. did i miss record? _ sage based on these things. did i miss record? i _ sage based on these things. did i miss record? i thought _ sage based on these things. did i miss record? i thought you said, the 6th of— miss record? i thought you said, the 6th of april— miss record? i thought you said, the 6th of april advice she received from _ 6th of april advice she received from your— 6th of april advice she received from your expert body was a disadvantage... outweigh, correct. have _ disadvantage... outweigh, correct. have i_ disadvantage... outweigh, correct. have i got — disadvantage... outweigh, correct. have i got it— disadvantage... outweigh, correct. have i got it right or wrong? you have not have i got it right or wrong? you have got it _ have i got it right or wrong? you have got it correct. _ have got it correct. you have had expert advice, disadvantages outweigh advantages. then on— disadvantages outweigh advantages. then on 8th of april, you reference what _ then on 8th of april, you reference what is _ then on 8th of april, you reference what is happening abroad. had anything — what is happening abroad. had anything changed in those two days? the evidence from abroad which i had managed to get together from our own

desktop research. i said, managed to get together from our own desktop research. isaid, i have done this research, can you review your expert advice based on this research that i have done. a couple of final points to finish off this point. your witness statement, addressing this issue then, takes us through the following months where bit by bit, as you have said, scientific advice changed, stage by stage the uk government changed its advice, and then it imposed various mandatory conditions about where face coverings has to be worn, on different places, transport networks, and so on. with that in mind, i would like you to look at paragraph 180 485. page a1.

184 refers to a letter from matt hancock, not replied to b have just looked at, but one which had been written eight a few days later, but stating that government expert groups had considered that facemasks, rather had considered the use of facemasks, decided there was not sufficient evidence to recommend their use, but they were currently re—reviewing the position in the light of the latest available evidence. and then you see this, i was disappointed by this response, which i felt gave short shrift to legitimate concerns that you had repeatedly raised on face coverings. notwithstanding the science... i

think— notwithstanding the science... i think this — notwithstanding the science... i think this is going to political, the second part. can think this is going to political, the second part.— think this is going to political, the second part. can i 'ust ask you a reneral the second part. can i 'ust ask you a general question? _ the second part. can ijust ask you a general question? we _ the second part. can ijust ask you a general question? we have - the second part. can ijust ask you| a general question? we have heard the second part. can ijust ask you i a general question? we have heard a lot in this inquiry about following this science. is it fair to say that on this issue of face coverings, the uk government did in fact follow the science, in the sense of repeatedly asking expert bodies to review the position, and when the scientific understanding changed, more or less, changing the guidance, in some cases making mandatory requirements? in that context, at a high level, where they not in fact, on one view, acting appropriately?- they not in fact, on one view, acting appropriately? nope. because sane a-rou acting appropriately? nope. because sage grouo of— acting appropriately? nope. because sage group of experts _ acting appropriately? nope. because sage group of experts who _ acting appropriately? nope. because| sage group of experts who concluded face coverings would make a difference, computed that on april 21. the use of face coverings only

on public transport became mandatory some months later, injune. use of face coverings in shops only became mandatory in latejuly. the use of face coverings and museums, galleries, sofas, only became mandatory in august. had the government been following the scientific evidence, after that sage meeting of april 21 they would have made it mandatory for people to wear face coverings in shops, public transport, galleries, from april, rather than eventually. i am not to ask any more about that issue. we shall complete your evidence before _ we shall complete your evidence before we come break for lunch. the code — before we come break for lunch. the code inquiry they are taking a break, after the london mayor sadiq khan has been given evidence for nearly 90 mitts. he has spoken at length about his relationship with

the fact that he was not in volt in any of the decision making. he told the inquiry he had to chase the government for information about the impending pandemic in the run—up to lock down. he confirmed that he was not personally invited to emergency meetings in early march, as the virus took hold, and in the days before lockdown. he said that the mayor met the dane piedt minister on the 19th of march, borisjohnson, he said it was clear that some proposals for lockdown measures, but at that point the prime minister had not been persuaded, he said prime minister was not aware and other parts of the world there are lockdown is in place and fines could beissued lockdown is in place and fines could be issued if you breach the lockdown. he said he would never forget the feeling of a lack of power and influence, he said he was told about a concentration of cases in london being really serious, and that the prime minister was calling this the biggest challenge since the

second world war, and draconian measures would be needed. let us get more, remind ourselves of what he had to save it feeling on the back foot when it came to that covid response because of what he called late communications with downing street. when i was told of concentration of cases in i see you in london was serious, the prime minister was using words like this was the biggest challenge we are going to face since the second world war, draconian measures are going to be needed. this is not delusions of grandeur, but i had been kept in the dark as the elected mayor of london, and ifelt dark as the elected mayor of london, and i felt almost winded in dark as the elected mayor of london, and ifelt almost winded in relation to what was happening in london. but also, realising there are things we could have done in relation to some of these issues. some we did. enhanced cleaning on the underground. others, we did not do. i was quite clear, not in any way to sound panic driven, but i was

alarmed by what i was being told in relation to where we were, and we may go to. i will never forget that sort of feeling of lack of power, lack of influence, not knowing what is happening in our city. our reporter has listened to all of that at the inquiry, joins us now from outside. what really struck me from outside. what really struck me from the mayor of london, the biggest city in the uk, our capital city, with a nine people, it was his sort of impotence, lack of ability to influence anything when it came to influence anything when it came to covid apart from making sure that the underground had better cleaning. yes, he said it was very much an understatement to say that he was frustrated at his lack of ability. he spoke about how on st patrick's day parade, the best he could do was have extra intensive cleaning of the london underground. he has been painting a picture very much of how

he as london mayor wanted to be more involved in the information, discussions, not least the emergency cobra meeting is, as they are known, that were taking place early in the pandemic. but he said that those which took place in february, he didn't even know about. and by the time he became aware that these meetings were taking place, several had happened already. we heard that on friday, february 28 he requested to attend the next cobra on march the 2nd, but was rebuffed. another e—mail on 8th of march, rebuffed. another one, checking my notes, the 12th of march, he said, again he was rebuffed. basically he did it very clear that he was mayor of the capital city and felt he had a major transport hub there with london heathrow airport, eurostar,

stansted, gatwick, city airport, he said it was a major location for the transport of tourism, that with a pandemic coming, this would be a point of major transmission, therefore he thought that he should be involved much earlier. and he made it very clear in his evidence that he said, i think lives could have been saved if we were involved earlier. that is really damning, really, that is what this is all about, learning the lessons, what could have been done differently. yes. it is not about damning, it is not about blaming, but it is about learning lessons. that is something that this section of the inquiry, we are in module to now, is very much about. we are looking at the political decision—making, the leadership, and therefore this all speaks to how those decisions were made, who was talking to who, at what time. it is quite interesting, sadiq khan says eventually he was invited to cobra meetings. dialogue did begin directly to happen between

himself, and we heard in exchange for the night before the first national mandatory lockdown was announced on 23rd of march, we saw on screen in the hearing, and the evidence was discussed of a transcript of a telephone call between boris johnson, transcript of a telephone call between borisjohnson, dane piedt minister, and sadiq khan. what was very interesting from that is that borisjohnson is prime minister was having to balance the health concerns about economic concerns. and one got a sense from the evidence, the transcript we were looking at, that even at that stage their night before the national lockdown was ordered, borisjohnson the prime minister still had not made up his mind on whether that was something that should take place, which indeed the following day he announced. doubt you very much. stay with us. we will be back in a few moments time. covering another main story, events in israel and gaza, this is the scene from

southern israel looking into gaza, where efforts continue to extend the current four day truce between israel and hamas. live from london. this is bbc news. as the temporary ceasefire between israel and hamas enters its fourth and final day, international pressure mounts for the truce to be extended. the pause should be extended to make it sustainable and long—lasting, while working for a political solution. discussions continue over the lists of israeli hostages and palestinian prisoners to be released later today, we hearfrom a family member who tells of his anguish. we are waiting for her to be released. you know, we are talking in this deal about children and women and mothers. tech billionaire elon musk is in israel to discuss combatting online anti—semitism with prime minister

benjamin netanyahu. and in other news, controversy at the climate change conference. the bbc reveals that the united arab emirates planned to use the summit to discuss possible oil deals. hello, i'm lucy hockings. welcome to bbc news now, three hours of fast—moving news, interviews and reaction. it's the final day of the four day truce between israel and hamas. this has been the scene in rafah, southern gaza today, with traffic and people moving about. israel has offered a further day's pause in the fighting in gaza for every ten captives released, and hamas says it seeks an extension. aid agencies have again been using the truce to transport more aid into the territory. nato chiefjens stoltenberg has joined us presidentjoe biden and the eu's head of diplomacy

josep borrell in calling for an extension in order to bring more hostages home.