Image source, PA

Former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel's portion of the inquiry has finished, so here's what we've learned from her and this morning's witness, Martin Hewitt, the former chairman of the National Police Chiefs' Council:

Border control

• Patel said she was given advice that shutting borders early would have had a "minimal impact" at preventing the spread of the virus
• And she said there was "no technical capability" in the UK government to be able to stop Covid at the border

Police at protests

• The former home secretary said that while the policing of protests during the pandemic appeared "uncomfortable" to some, she felt police generally struck the right balance between freedom of expression and enforcing coronavirus regulations
• But she described policing in March 2021 at a vigil for Sarah Everard - who was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a police officer - was "totally inappropriate"

Fines

• Questioned on the £10,000 fines introduced for regulation breaches, she said they were not proportionate and were "very high"
• And she said data showing black people were three times more likely to receive a fine for breaching regulations "raised concerns"

Drafting of regulations

• This morning, Hewitt said the National Police Chief's Council (NCPP) was told of regulation changes "minutes" before they came into force at times. In her evidence, Patel said Covid rules would often be drafted at night and police briefed in the morning

• Patel said she agrees with the inquiry lawyer that there was a "high degree of confusion" around "complex" regulations - which led to confusion by the public and the police

Jun Pang, policy and campaigns officer for Liberty - an advocacy group which campaigns against abuses of power and provides free legal advice - is giving evidence now. We won't be writing live text updates for his evidence session, but you can watch by pressing play at the top of this page.

Former Home Secretary Priti Patel's evidence to the inquiry has now finished. Stay with us for a recap of the key things we learned.

The questioning moves to the issue of domestic abuse during the pandemic.

A memo is shown to the inquiry raising concerns about the risk of it happening in lockdown, stressing the need for a speedy response to the issue.

Liz Davies KC, who is focusing on domestic abuse during the pandemic, suggests the memo is the first time the issue has been documented, three days into lockdown.

Patel says there may be other informal documents on the issue.

Davies insists there is no other mention of tackling domestic abuse in everything that has been disclosed to the inquiry.

Patel says a wide range of discussions were taking place in the Home Office in the run up to lockdown.

The former home secretary is now being questioned by Claire Mitchell KC, on behalf of the Scottish Covid Bereaved group, which represents families whose loved-ones have died.

Mitchell asks whether Patel had discussions about the possibility of banning travel between England and Scotland or England and Wales.

Patel recalls that she had discussions through the Cabinet Office focused on the devolved administrations - and that calls about policing within the department were joined by constables from Scotland and Wales.

"Our discussions were constant," she says, as it was "absolutely vital" to hear from them.

Asked if she dealt with anyone specifically in Scotland, Patel says she believes she spoke to Humza Yousaf, of the Scottish Parliament early on during the pandemic.

The inquiry continues along the lines of protests, and how regulations were enforced.

The lawyer highlights in particular the vigil in March 2021 for Sarah Everard who was murdered by a police officer. Six people were accused of breaking lockdown rules at the vigil, though their prosecution was dropped months later.

The lawyer asks whether the protest rules were "unenforceable" - yes, Patel replies.

She describes the time as "fraught" and "emotional", and says that during discussions with the Met Police Commissioner in the run-up to the vigil, it was clear "people would come out".

She says she encouraged the public to use "other ways of showing grief" but that when she saw the news on the evening of the vigil, she "was dismayed at what I saw" and thought it was "totally inappropriate policing".

It's put to Patel that data from the Metropolitan Police in June 2020 showed that black people were three times more likely to be given a fixed penalty notice (FPN) compared to white people.

She was asked if she thought that undermined the public's confidence in the scheme.

Patel replied: "It raised concerns, absolutely."

She went on to say that throughout the pandemic the Home Office was very conscientious of public confidence in policing and aware that concerns over law enforcement could have spilled over into a public order issue.

Image source, Covid Inquiry

A handwritten memo from the PM is shown to the inquiry, which suggested there should be bigger fines and tougher enforcement for those breaking rules.

Patel is asked to what extent she debated with the PM about such a proposal.

Patel says she absolutely had discussions with the PM at the time around enforcements and fines.

She insisted she would not have attempted to direct the way police handled cases and said she was focused on ensuring the law was upheld in the right way.

Asked if she thought a flat fine of £10,000 from 15 August, was proportionate, Patel says "it was very high".

Pressed again if it was proportionate, Patel says: "The answer is no."

Asked to what extent the home secretary can call for rules to be enforced more or less, she says they can ask questions about police activities, including holding them to account.

But in the pandemic, police had to exercise professional judgement, Patel says - and enforcement was a last resort after the four Es - engage, explain, encourage, enforce.

She is then asked whether she called for the police to have a lighter touch. Patel replies she felt she spent "a great deal of time" reminding her colleagues "we as politicians are not there to direct police directly as when to arrest people or enforce the law," she says. "I had reminded many colleagues, including in Downing Street, that in unprecedented time we have asked police to do unprecedented things."

"The enforcement of the regulations was down to the circumstances police were dealing with," she says.

The questioning now moves on to the enforcing of regulations.

Patel says she agrees with the inquiry lawyer when he says there was a "high degree of confusion" around "complex, difficult to understand" regulations - which led to confusion by the public and the police.

She is then asked whether she would advocate for a better system in the future for rules in a similar public health crisis. "I think there needs to be a different system completely. Totally different system," Patel says.

Earlier, in evidence from senior police boss Martin Hewitt, the inquiry heard the Home Office and police were often given limited time to review changes to Covid rules.

Hugo Keith KC is now pressing Patel on this line, asking why, throughout the course of the pandemic, the system was not changed to allow more time for consultation on these changes.

Drafting and delivery of Covid regulations sits with the Department of Health, says Patel, and the Home Office is there to "explain what would and wouldn't work, and there was a lot that didn't work".

"I can't account for the system itself", she says. More often than not, regulations would be drafted overnight and officers would be briefed in the morning, she adds - "it was suboptimal at every single level."

Asked about lockdown regulations and whether victims could leave homes of abuse, Patel says there were "endless discussions" on the topic between No 10 and the Home Office. She says that the Home Office would work with one of the PM's advisers to ensure that domestic abuse featured in the discussions.

Finally, Patel is asked whether the Home Office considered affording victims of domestic abuse an "open and clear permissible legal route" by which they could leave the location of the abuse.

"Yes - there were endless discussions about this," Patel says.

She adds that there were public communications that said that those at harm could leave. "At no stage did we say 'you cannot leave'," Patel says.

"In March 2022 the Home Office launched a plan to tackle domestic abuse," the inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith now says.

He says that at the time, it was clear that, despite all the work that had been done, lockdown and the Covid restrictions meant that online child abuse had increased and more people were using helplines. He asks Patel to assess the work that she and the Home Office did to address this "scourge of criminality".

Patel says "the steps we took, I would absolutely stand by" and they were the "right steps to deploy throughout the pandemic".

"We knew there'd be a surge in demand of people seeking help and support when we'd come out of lockdown," Patel says, adding that one of the big challenges she faced was that she had to "resource what comes next."

"We have to plan for the future... and reprioritise funding," Patel says. "We knew that there would be a surge and these issues - they're always there."

Patel says the January 2021 announcement of a national strategy to protect children, was "pivotal, absolutely crucial" at dealing with all forms of child abuse.

She said when schools closed, they had seen a "surge" in online harms - "a very significant increase in the appalling practice of online harm and abuse of children".

"I had some forthright discussions with technology companies about their own responsibilities", she says, mentioning data sharing and closing down platforms that enable abuse.

Throughout lockdown there was a "surge in activity online", she said, but they found organisations that would ordinarily help tackle online abuse had been negatively impacted by the pandemic themselves.

Patel says that a "combination" of things were needed when helping vulnerable groups in lockdown.

One aspect, she says, was bringing together front-line organisations - refuges and charities for example - and understanding what they need from the government.

Patel is asked about the definition of the word vulnerable.

The inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC says initially it was used only in a clinical context - those with an underlying health condition, the elderly, and pregnant women, for example - but asks if it should have been widened.

Patel agrees, saying she pressed for a wider definition of the word - including mentioning children. "Sometimes the safety net isn't there and misses categories of individuals", she says. "That was front and centre of my concern".

The inquiry is now back after a pause for lunch.

Priti Patel is being asked about how the government dealt with the "hidden harms" caused by Covid - for example, how victims of domestic and child abuse were considered when deciding to introduce lockdown.

According to Patel's statement, there was no pre-existing plan within the Home Office to protect vulnerable people during lockdown - because there was not much thinking about lockdowns before Covid.

Patel says that work took place within the department and with police, adding: "We were agile - we were able to work at pace and start working across the sector with partners as soon as we were effectively locking down."

She also says that in the run-up to lockdown she had already started to have discussions about vulnerable people, because "that's nature of the work of the Home Office". She says funding was already available for vulnerable people and resources were subsequently increased.

Image source, Covid Inquiry

As the inquiry breaks for lunch, here's what we've learned so far this morning:

• In the last hour or so, we heard from former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel who said it was "evident very early on" that the UK didn't have the ability to stop Covid at the border. She said there was "no technical capability" - such as screening - and also agreed it was "fair" to say there were no developed plans in place about what to do at the border in a pandemic
• She said she was given advice that shutting the borders early would have had a "minimal impact" at preventing the spread of the virus - but that discussions about the border were in some ways political, as well as focused on public health.
• Earlier Martin Hewitt - former head of the National Police Chief's Council (NPCC) - said there was a "lack of clarity" on Covid rules. At times, the NPCC were told of regulation changes "minutes" before they came into force, he said
• Hewitt also said here was confusion over the policing of protests, including after the murder of Sarah Everard
• And, in a rare intervention, the chair of the inquiry, Baroness Hallett, criticised government legislation giving police the power to enforce people to be tested for the virus. She said she "shouldn't criticise, but that's a bad piece of legislation" - more on that moment here

Tom Symonds
Home Affairs Correspondent

Covid forced the police to tackle multiple simultaneous problems.

Preventing officers spreading the virus and handling protests was difficult enough - but enforcing the swiftly-changing Covid regulations caused constant friction and criticism.

But, broadly, the National Police Chiefs' Council managed to ensure the 43 forces of England and Wales applied the rules consistently. Scotland and Northern Ireland, which had their own jurisdictions, were included in the discussions.

There were anti-lockdown protests, but they were limited in size. There was constant and healthy online debate about the legitimacy of the Covid rules, but in general people seemed to believe in the need to regulate their behaviour. They self-policed.

Watching the inquiry, it is possible to wonder what might have happened if the public hadn’t been compliant.

The chair of the inquiry, Baroness Hallett, must come up with better ways of responding not to this pandemic - but the next one.

This morning, she hinted at the need for better laws and a better system to make sure they are understood and enforced.

It's put to Patel that in early February there was a suggestion from SPI-M-O, a scientific group that gave expert advice on Covid, that there may be already sustained community transmission.

Patel says that informed a decision not to focus on border regulations as they wouldn't have made a difference to the virus's spread.

Patel says by the time of the lockdown in March 2020 people had already started to reduce their travel, and other countries had started introducing journey restrictions.

She agrees that the Home Office took the position that there wasn't the technical capability or skills to effectively restrict the infection through the border.

Inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC suggests to Patel that there were no specific plans of what to do at the border - in terms of screening, quarantines, or a border closure - in the event of a pandemic.

Patel says that's "fair", and that they had to work out what to do.

Early on in the pandemic, it became clear there were "hotspots" around the world, she says, and that information was "pivotal" for Public Health England to figure out future problems.

At the time, Patel says she was shown evidence that shutting borders would have a "minimal impact" at preventing the spread of the virus, and that it was "evident very early on" that the government didn't have the technical capability to put in place certain measures at the border.

The hearing has now paused, but here's a bit more from former Home Secretary Priti Patel's evidence in the last 30 minutes.

Inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC asked Patel about how the UK border was secured during the pandemic.

Patel describes the time in January 2020 as "fraught", saying that discussions about borders were in some ways political, as well as focused on public health.

But, she adds that the Home Office's "hands were forced because of Wuhan" and the spread of Covid in China.

Patel adds that there had been "work undertaken by previous governments" around what to do if there was an influenza pandemic, "so we can't just say... it was just a blank sheet of paper".