If you missed Baroness Hallett's statement earlier, don't worry. We've been across it all, and these are some of her key remarks following the publication of the Covid Inquiry's first report:

• The UK needs to be better prepared as it's "not a question of if, but when" the next pandemic will strike
• The country already had high levels of illness going into the pandemic, was "ill-prepared" and "lacked resilience" in 2020

• The UK was "prepared for the wrong pandemic" and existing systems were "labyrinthine" in their complexity
• Citizens of all four nations were "failed" and the UK's pandemic strategy from 2011 was "outdated" and "untested"
• The "harrowing accounts of loss" are a reminder that "radical reform" is needed
• Each organisation responsible for applying her recommendations is expected to set out how it plans to respond within six months

Let's take a quick look back at the recommendations Baroness Hallett has made so the UK would be better prepared for any future pandemics:

• Radically simplifying the civil emergency preparedness and resilience systems, including rationalising and streamlining bureaucracy
• A new approach to risk assessment, providing a better and more comprehensive evaluation of a wider range of actual risks
• A new UK-wide approach to developing strategy, which learns lessons from the past and from regular civil emergency exercises, taking proper account of existing vulnerabilities and inequalities
• Better data collection and sharing in advance of future pandemics and the commissioning of a wider range of research projects
• Holding a UK-wide pandemic response exercise at least every three years and publishing the outcome
• Bringing in external expertise from outside government and the civil services to challenge orthodoxy and guard against "the acute problem of groupthink"
• Creating a single, independent, statutory body responsible for whole-system preparedness and response, consulting widely with experts and the voluntary, community and social sector and providing strategic advice to government

Stay with us as we bring you more analysis and reaction throughout the afternoon.

Hallett concludes by saying that "unless the lessons are learned and fundamental change is implemented, the human and financial cost and sacrifice of the Covid-19 pandemic will have been in vain".

She says the "harrowing accounts of loss and grief given by the bereaved witnesses...serve to remind us why there must be radical reform".

That wraps up her statement, but we'll be bringing you analysis and further updates, so stay with us.

Baroness Hallett continues explaining her recommendations, which include bringing in external expertise to challenge orthodoxy and guard against the "acute problem" of groupthink.

Lastly and "most importantly", she says, is the creation of a single, statutory, independent body responsible for "whole system preparedness and response".

She says this body would consult widely with experts in the field, community and social sectors, and provide strategic advice to government.

Baroness Hallett says the inquiry recommends a fundamental reform of the UK government and devolved nations' preparedness for civil emergencies.

She suggests a radical simplification of preparedness systems, rationalising and streamlining bureaucracy, a new approach to risk assessment, new UK-wide approach which learns lessons from the past and takes proper account of existing inequalities.

Image source, Covid-19 inquiry

Hallett says the UK government's sole pandemic strategy from 2011 "was outdated and lacked adaptability", adding that "it was never properly tested and the doctrine that underpinned was ultimately abandoned".

"Processes, planning and policy of structures failed the citizens of all four nations," she adds.

Reiterating what was said in the report, Baroness Hallett says the UK was "prepared for the wrong pandemic".

The existing systems were "labyrinthine" in their complexity, she says.

She goes onto say there were flaws over how risks could be managed and how the state should respond to them.

In 2019 it was assumed the UK was best prepared to deal with the pandemic, but in reality it was ill-prepared, inquiry chair Baroness Hallett continues.

"In 2020, the UK lacked resilience," she adds.

She goes on to say the country already had high pre-existing levels of illness and general levels of ill health, which made the UK more vulnerable.

Baroness Hallett starts by talking about the state of structures in place in the UK - mentioning resilience and response.

"Were we ready?" she asks, "if not, why not?"

She goes on to say it's not a question of if another pandemic will strike, but when, and the UK needs to be "far better prepared".

Another pandemic "that is more transmissible and lethal is likely to occur in the near to medium future," Hallett adds.

We're now hearing from Covid inquiry chair Baroness Hallett, following the publication of that damning report.

We'll be bringing you the key lines on what she has to say, and you can watch her statement live at the top of this page.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

One of the most eye-catching conclusions of this report is that the UK was prepared for the “wrong” pandemic when Covid hit.

But what exactly does that mean?

Much of the work carried out before 2020 was designed to deal with the “significant risk” of a new form of pandemic influenza.

Today’s report says that approach was “inadequate for a global pandemic of the kind that struck”.

Those influenza plans focused on dealing with the fallout from the disease rather than trying to stop it in its tracks.

They relied on being able to quickly tweak existing vaccines to work against a new strain of pandemic flu, and to roll out medications, including anti-viral drugs, to those most in need.

Both of those approaches would not work nearly as well against a new form of coronavirus.

It also meant that measures put in place in some other countries, such as strict border controls and contract tracing to eliminate early outbreaks, were not really considered in the UK’s plans.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

In 2016 ministers carried out a major cross-government training exercise, called Exercise Cygnus, to see how officials would respond to an outbreak of new influenza pandemic.

It identified worryingly large gaps in the response and plans were put in place to update those by 2018.

Today’s report says that simply didn’t happen and by June 2020, just eight of the 22 recommendations made after that exercise had been completed.

“Social care, in particular, had been flagged consistently as an issue but had not been addressed,” says the report.

One reason it cites for this “inaction” were the competing demands of “Operation Yellowhammer”, the UK government’s contingency planning for a no-deal Brexit.

It says the UK was reliant on stopping work on one potential emergency to concentrate on another.

But it also heard evidence from politicians that Brexit planning led to a better understanding of supply chains, meaning it could more quickly stockpile medicines in the pandemic.

And those officials said 15,000 extra staff had been recruited because of Operation Yellowhammer, who could then be redeployed when Covid hit.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

The report calls the systems and structures in place across the UK government and devolved nations "labyrinthine".

Therefore, it is no surprise that its recommendations propose a radical overhaul in how the system works.

In each nation there should be a single ministerial-level committee responsible for all civil emergency planning – not just for pandemics.

The committee will be led by the leader or deputy leader of each government with all departments having input into it.

This will mean taking responsibility away from the Department of Health and Social Care in London, which acts as the lead for the UK.

To ensure a wider range of advice and expertise is fed into pandemic planning and assessment of those plans, Baroness Hallett wants to see a new independent body created bringing together scientists and socio-economic experts.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

The report says pandemic planning was undermined by groupthink. The scientific advice received by ministers was too narrowly focused and there was too little consideration to the socio-economic impacts.

It says ministers did not do enough to challenge what they were being told and there was not sufficient freedom or autonomy in the way the various advisory groups were set up for dissenting voices to be heard.

This consequence of this was that the UK was preparing for the “wrong kind of pandemic”.

The strategy dated back to 2011 and at its heart was the belief the spread of a new virus was inevitable.

This was partly because the government and its experts had been “lulled” into a false sense of security by the Swine flu pandemic of 2009, which turned out to be mild.

The 2011 strategy was then quickly abandoned when Covid hit to be replaced by the “untested” policy of lockdown.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

Across its 217 pages, the first report released by the Covid Inquiry is damning in its criticism of the UK’s pandemic planning.

It said significant flaws in the UK’s preparations meant Covid caused more deaths and economic damage than it should have.

It has called for radical reform of the systems in place, saying the UK government and devolved nations “failed their citizens”.

In particular, it says the country planned for the wrong pandemic – assuming it would be a mild one where spread of a new virus was inevitable. This led to the UK turning to the “untested” policy of lockdown.

And the report said part of the blame must lie with groupthink by scientists and too little challenge by ministers.

James Gregory
Live editor

We're just a few minutes away from UK Covid inquiry's report on the UK's pandemic preparations being published.

We're poised to bring you all of the key lines from it. Our correspondents already have sight of the document and are looking through it now in a locked room.

Then, Baroness Hallett, who is chairing the inquiry, will deliver her recommendations.

Stay with us as we bring you her remarks, which you can also watch live at the top of this page.

Did the UK government plan for the wrong virus?published at 11:53 British Summer Time 18 July

11:53 BST 18 July

Nick Triggle
Health Correspondent

As the pandemic hit, the government tried to reassure the public we were among the best-prepared for a pandemic. Academics had said so, rating the UK behind only the US.

The problem was that our plans were based on a flu virus - and a mild one at that.

This is because the UK’s last experience of a pandemic was swine flu in 2009-10. It has a low fatality rate largely because older people appeared to have some level of immunity to it because of exposure to an older strain of the virus that was behind the pandemic.

This appears to have lulled the UK and other western nations into a false sense of security - and the idea that they could rely on antivirals and the flu vaccine to limit the number of deaths caused by a new pandemic.

When Covid was taking off in spring 2020, the UK abandoned testing in the community. Countries in Asia, with their experience of the coronavirus outbreaks Sars and Mers, felt differently.

They had in place test, trace and quarantine systems that were able to limit the spread of Covid at the start, helping limit to some extent there need for lockdowns.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

The decade before Covid saw tight spending constraints imposed on almost every part of the public sector.

The question for the inquiry is what damage - if any - did that do to the country’s ability to respond to the virus?

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) in its evidence, external said public health services were being “stretched to breaking point” by what it called “the disastrous consequences of austerity”.

England's former chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, was heavily critical of the state of the NHS, saying it had fewer doctors, nurses, beds and ventilators than similar countries.

Academics Sir Michael Marmot and Clare Bambra produced a report stating that poorer regions and ethnic minority groups were disproportionally affected, with the UK entering the pandemic with "depleted" public services.

But in his evidence, George Osborne, who was chancellor from 2010 to 2016, “completely rejected” that description. He suggested that, without a clear plan to put public finances on a sustainable path, we might not have been able to afford schemes like furlough.

While we’ll have to wait another 20 minutes to get the report, we know it's likely to address some of the following issues which were raised during phase 1 of the inquiry:

• The fact that much of the planning for a pandemic was based on a 2011 document, external drawn up in case there was an outbreak of a new, more deadly form of influenza
• Other countries managed more effectively to suppress the initial wave of Covid than the UK
• The question of whether earlier austerity policies inflicted damage
• Government departments were being asked to step up planning for a so-called "no-deal Brexit" from 2018, meaning a number of health department workstreams related to pandemic planning were paused
• The political decisions which led to nationwide lockdowns - and why they weren’t planned for

Reporters and journalists are at a lock-in at Dorland House in central London - where the inquiry takes place - to read the report before it’s made public.

In just over half an hour, at 12:00 BST, the inquiry will publish its first report on the UK's preparedness for a pandemic. This is our first chance to see what conclusions Baroness Hallett has drawn from many, many hours of hearings with political and scientific heavyweights.

A few minutes afterwards, she'll deliver a statement with her recommendations - we'll have that live right here.

We don't know what the report will say, but Hallett has promised the inquiry will be “thorough and fair”.