Image source, PA Media

Former cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill has finished giving evidence to the Covid inquiry, so here's a recap of what we learnt.

Chickenpox parties

• Sedwill was asked about claims he had suggested during the early stages of the pandemic that the government should encourage chickenpox-style parties with the aim of infecting people with Covid
• He admitted making the comment and apologised, accepting his suggestions could have come across as “both heartless and thoughtless”
• However, he argued that at the time it was "inevitable" the virus would spread and he was looking at ways of managing this

Characterisation of Boris Johnson

• In WhatsApp messages with Sedwill, another senior civil servant, Simon Case, described Boris Johnson and the people he chose to surround himself with as "basically feral". Sedwill - who responded by saying he had "bite marks" to show for it - told the inquiry this was "gallows humour"
• He told the inquiry he reminded the then prime minister that the cabinet needed to be involved in Covid decision-making, as he was concerned they were not "fully participative"
• He also said there was concern for Johnson's "stamina" during his recovery from Covid, after he was admitted to intensive care in April 2020

Criticism of Matt Hancock

• Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock also came in for criticism through WhatsApp messages shown to the inquiry
• Sedwill acknowledged he believed Hancock should have been sacked from his role and said he raised concerns with the prime minister - although he stressed he would not have used the word "sack" during such a conversation
• In a section from Johnson's witness statement, shown to the inquiry, the former PM said he did not have concerns over Hancock's performance and did not think he received any advice from Sedwill that he should be removed

Tory MP Justin Tomlinson - who was minister of state for disabled people, work and health from 2019 to 2021 - is giving evidence now. We won't be writing live text updates for his evidence session, but you can watch every moment by pressing play at the top of this page.

Image source, Covid inquiry

After taking questions from Baroness Hallet, the chair of the inquiry, we heard from Philip Dayle, representing the Federation of Ethnic Minority Healthcare Organisations.

He asked Sedwill whether mechanisms were in place for issues affecting black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and how they were raised with senior decision makers.

Sedwill said in normal circumstances, there would be an equality impact assessment, which is a standard process involving consultation and interaction with community groups.

However, going into a lockdown, there was "no time to do any of that".

Image source, Covid inquiry

A lighter moment there, when Baroness Hallett, the chair of the inquiry, makes another brief intervention by asking Sedwill about the lessons that can be learned about decision-making in government during a crisis.

Baroness Hallett says she will ask one question, but after asking another jokes: "Anyway, it's my inquiry, I'll change the rules," to laughs from Sedwill and others in the room.

Sedwill is now asked about his decision to leave the role of cabinet secretary. He says the final decision was taken in early June 2020 and he officially left his role leading the civil service in September.

The inquiry's lawyer asks whether he believes this left the civil service and government "destabilised".

Sedwill says he was conscious leaving his role would "undoubtedly" be destabilising and that many colleagues urged him to stay on.

However, he says he was also conscious that it was destabilising for the system to have "constant hostile attacks" on the cabinet secretary.

Sedwill says he concluded that these anonymous attacks would stop if the prime minister appointed someone else to his role.

More messages between Sedwill and Simon Case - now from May 2020 - are being shown to the inquiry.

There's some back and forth between Keith, the inquiry lawyer, and Sedwill about former health secretary Matt Hancock and whether he was the right person for the job.

Sedwill says he did have private conversations with the then PM Boris Johnson about this, but disputes ever telling Johnson to "sack" Hancock.

He eventually acknowledges that when he quit his role as cabinet secretary in June 2020, he made it clear to Johnson that "indeed" he thought Hancock should be replaced.

Hancock stayed in post for another year.

The inquiry lawyer, Hugo Keith, is still taking Sedwill through some of his WhatsApp messages with Simon Case from June 2020.

In one exchange, the pair discuss Boris Johnson and his inner circle, without naming anyone specifically.

Case describes the PM and "the people he chooses to surround himself with" as "feral", to which Sedwill says he has the "bite marks" to show for it.

Keith presses Sedwill on who Case and he were referring to in these messages. Sedwill responds that there is sometimes "gallows humour" in some of the WhatsApp messages.

He says the first exchange came after a point where there had been "severe friction" between him, the PM and his immediate team.

For context: Case was Downing Street permanent secretary at this time, but went on to take over from Sedwill as cabinet secretary and head of the civil service in September 2020.

Image source, Covid inquiry

The inquiry's lawyer now takes Sedwill through some evidence given about Boris Johnson by his former senior advisers, including Dominic Cummings, suggesting the prime minister was unable to manage a cohesive team and direct government machinery consistently.

He quotes Johnson's then director of communications Lee Cain as saying Covid was the "wrong crisis" for the prime minister's skillset.

Asked if he agrees, Sedwill says he recognises those qualities but wouldn't express it in the same way.

He compares it to Johnson's decision-making during Brexit, when he says the prime minister appeared to change his mind and express opposing views at different times.

Pete Saull
Political correspondent

Questioning has largely turned to the workplace culture in Downing Street.

Another top government official described the atmosphere as being like a “superhero bun fight”, with too many people brought in, all competing to get their opinions heard.

Sedwill says he deliberately “over-resourced” because he was worried about staff having lengthy periods of time off work.

It was the “right” thing to do, he insisted, to ensure there were never any gaps.

The inquiry's lawyer asks why, in a message, Sedwill seemed to question the honesty and judgement of Matt Hancock, the then-health secretary.

In a message produced for the evidence, Sedwill is shown to have written that "the big problem is Hancock".

A later message reads: "But I mostly blame Hancock. Deja-vu..."

Simon Case, a private secretary to Boris Johnson at the time, replied: "...There's no one around driving the policy side on Matt's behalf... Weird absence."

Mark Sedwill then replied: "Welcome to the last six months".

"There was a general issue surrounding Mr Hancock, is that a fair summary?" the lawyer asks.

Sedwill replies: "Yes and you heard from Helen MacNamara on that last week."

Image source, Covid inquiry

The inquiry's lawyer continues going through messages between Mark Sedwill and Simon Case, who would succeed Sedwill as cabinet secretary and is still in post.

A section of those messages includes Case saying the "legitimacy of the [government] to be accepted has been so dangerously eroded it seems".

Asked what this referred to, Sedwill says he presumed that related to the Barnard Castle incident involving Dominic Cummings and the government's response to it.

It's worth noting that we're yet to hear from Case himself.

A bit more on that idea of segmentation now, which we mentioned in our last post.

The former cabinet secretary compared shielding to "Stalinist segmentation" in messages to then No 10 permanent secretary Simon Case.

In a message from 16 July 2020, Lord Sedwill wrote:

After the break, the inquiry's lawyer is taking Mark Sedwill - the former cabinet secretary and head of the civil service - through some messages from March 2020 exchanged between Sedwill and Simon Case (who went on to take over Sedwill's role after he quit).

In the messages, Sedwill discusses not "buying" an argument by scientific advisers in the Sage group that a "segmentation" approach to Covid would be too difficult.

Segmentation was a potential strategy where the population would be split into age and risk groups, for example with further restrictions for older age groups or individuals more vulnerable to Covid.

It's put to Sedwill that the government wasn't following the science in this case.

Sedwill says Sage's argument was not being dismissed - but simply not being accepted without challenge.

He says knowledge of the virus was better, and the number of under-50s being hospitalised was less than expected at this point.

This was a "policy question", rather than a scientific one, he says.

The inquiry is due to kick off again soon, but let's look back at a key moment from this morning when Mark Sedwill apologised for suggesting chickenpox style-parties could be held Covid early in the pandemic.

Sedwill - who was the top civil servant at the time - said they were private exchanges and he never expected them to become public.

Watch the moment in the 30-second clip below:

Image source, PA Media

We've been hearing from former cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill this morning - the country's top civil servant at the beginning of the pandemic.

Sedwill was at the heart of the government machine, and was in the room for many of the big moments.

Here's a summary of his evidence so far:

• Mark Sedwill has apologised for suggesting that chickenpox-style parties could be held for Covid early in the pandemic
• He told the inquiry he made the suggestion when it was "inevitable" the virus would spread and he was looking at a way of managing it
• Sedwill said he knew Covid was a more serious disease than chickenpox, and admitted his comment could have seemed "heartless"
• Sedwill said he reminded Boris Johnson that cabinet needed to be involved in Covid decision-making, as he was concerned they were not "fully participative"
• He also said the “candour” of cabinet discussions was also “constrained” by Johnson setting out firm views at the beginning of meetings
• Sedwill also said there was concern for Johnson's "stamina" during his recovery from Covid - he had been admitted to intensive care due to being so ill

Ellie Price
Political correspondent

A little earlier, Mark Sedwill told the inquiry that the willingness of the devolved administrations to agree on restrictions in the early part of the pandemic was "striking."

He said it was "paradoxically more difficult" later in the pandemic when he says the decisions were less "acute".

Yesterday the inquiry heard that Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon "didn't like each other very much".

Lord Lister, Boris Johnson's chief of staff during the pandemic, said whatever Westminster was going to do, the Scottish government would "play politics with it" and "do something different".

Exactly how the devolved administrations interacted with each other is doubtlessly an important part of this inquiry and the hearings will move to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast next year.

Mark Sedwill is asked about the period when Boris Johnson became ill with Covid and how that affected his ability to make government decisions.

Sedwill - the top civil servant at the time - said although it took Johnson a long time to recover, he wasn't concerned about his decision-making style and "it was about stamina really".

The inquiry is now taking a break for lunch - they'll be back at 13:50. We'll be bringing you the key lines from the morning though, so stick with us.

More on the decision to lock down the country in March 2020 now.

Mark Sedwill says the advice “was clear that the disease is still exponential" when they made the decision to lock down on 23 March.

Sedwill also says he is "highly sceptical" a lockdown could have been avoided altogether.

However, he says if the decision to lock down had been taken earlier "it would have had a greater impact on that accelerating curve earlier, and one presumes a positive effect on casualties [and] lockdown".

Jim Reed
Health reporter

That was a fascinating exchange about the timing of that first national lockdown, announced on 23 March 2020.

The previous week - on 16 March - the prime minister had gone on television asking the public to avoid non-essential contact and stay at home for 14 days if they had Covid symptoms.

Mark Sedwill - the top civil servant at the time - said over the next few days there was anecdotal evidence that those voluntary measures were not effective enough.

"What we were hearing from focus groups was that, if the government had [really] wanted to close pubs, it would have closed pubs," he said.

On 19 March the government did go further - and took the extraordinary step of ordering the close of all pubs, clubs and restaurants alongside the launch of what became the furlough scheme.

It still wasn't seen as effective enough and the following Monday - 23 March - a full national lockdown was announced with a mandatory stay-at-home order.

Sedwill was asked if the government could have waited a few weeks to see if the voluntary measures would have been effective.

He said it was "hard to see how government could have done anything else" to bring the outbreak under control by that stage, and denied that locking down was an overreaction.

Mark Sedwill is asked about a WhatsApp exchange between Boris Johnson and his closest adviser Dominic Cummings, in which the latter suggested Sedwill had been slow to appreciate the seriousness of Covid compared to other people in Downing Street.

Sedwill replied it's possible that is the case but the exchange came after a meeting in which he was not involved.

He added he saw his job as providing leadership "to a system that was on the edge of panic" during the pandemic.

Sedwill is asked about a change in the government’s approach to dealing with Covid - commonly referred to as a switch from Plan A to Plan B.

Plan B included the first lockdown, which happened in March 2020.

The inquiry's lawyer asks if this was around the time Sedwill made his much-discussed comments about chickenpox parties.

As we explained earlier, the inquiry has heard that Sedwill suggested, in meetings with ministers, that the government should encourage groups of people to get together with the aim of becoming infected with Covid, as has been done with chickenpox (a far milder disease) in the past.

Sedwill says the remark was made before the change of approach to Covid in March.

Sedwill says: “At no point did I believe that coronavirus was only of the same seriousness as chickenpox. I knew it was a much more serious disease.”