Image source, UK Covid inquiry

The inquiry has now moved on to ask Sir Patrick Vallance about long Covid and the approach from policymakers in the Cabinet Office towards its impact on the population.

In written evidence submitted to the inquiry ahead of today, Vallance says that former prime minister Boris Johnson was "very sceptical" about long Covid.

"He [Johnson] didn't really think it was a big problem," Vallance wrote, adding that the prime minister "wasn't keen" to take on board evidence about the longer-term impacts of Covid-19 infections.

Vallance adds that Johnson did not want to think about long Covid in an "active" way.

Then-health secretary Matt Hancock, on the other hand, understood long Covid and could communicate and explain it, according to Vallance.

In a note from the period Vallance said: "Hancock explained things well for once".

Jim Reed
Health reporter

As the pandemic stretched into the autumn of 2020, Vallance became well known for what almost became a catchphrase in news conference.

You had to go "earlier, harder and broader" than you would like in order to keep on top of the virus, he said repeatedly at the time.

Asked about that phrase in the inquiry, he repeated his view that the UK didn't act quickly enough in the first wave of the pandemic, in March 2020.

He said similar mistakes were made later in the year when certain geographical areas of England, such as Leicester and Liverpool, were put into enhanced measures because of the spread of the disease.

"The temptation is always to make [the restrictions] as limited as possible, and then that fails because the surrounding areas immediately got overwhelmed," he added.

He said we saw this very clearly in October 2020 under the tier system of regional restrictions, where, as we've just reported, "every MP" argued their area shouldn't be placed in a higher tier, with tougher rules on meeting up and opening businesses.

"The result of that, particularly when there's a high prevalence [of the virus], is that you tip over into an R-number above one and then you grow [the outbreak]," he said.

O'Connor then asks Vallance about the psychology that decision-makers had towards pandemic restrictions.

Vallance reiterates that in the first wave, lockdown didn't happen "early enough" and that there was only a "trickle-in of measures".

He says he noticed a trend of decision-makers arguing to introduce restrictions "just a little bit less" than they needed to.

The temptation in government, he adds, was to make measures "as limited as possible", with MPs routinely arguing their areas should be in a "lower tier".

O'Connor now asks Vallance if it was a good idea for him and Professor Sir Chris Whitty to take part in the Covid press conferences.

In his written evidence, Vallance had said that they "did not seek this role", but now says he thinks it was "overall, beneficial" for them to be there.

However, he acknowledges there was a "blurred line" with him and Whitty being asked about government policy decisions despite being independent advisers.

This was "unhelpful", Vallance says, adding that he "wouldn't have lost any sleep" if he had been told not to do any more press conferences, he adds.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

Earlier, Sir Patrick Vallance was asked twice about why he and Professor Sir Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, had a different view to introducing restrictions.

Vallance's evidence statement makes reference to the fact Whitty wanted to go at a slower pace both in March 2020 and in September 2020 when talk of re-introducing restrictions was resurfacing.

But Vallance said this was entirely right as Whitty’s remit included public health – and so he was more focussed on the consequences to people’s health of restrictions.

He said it was “useful and helpful” to debate these with Whitty inside government.

And this, in a sense, goes to the nub of decision-making during the pandemic.

It was a matter of trade-offs with ministers and their advisers trying to work out the least-worst option – rather than the often-quoted mantra of “following the science” which is a rather one-dimensional interpretation of problem.

Andrew O'Connor KC asks Vallance if there was a lot of pressure on him and Chris Whitty having to be the two men who were tasked with passing on so much advice from the Sage committee to decision-makers.

Vallance says that it would not have been "practical or realistic" to have had a whole group of scientists passing on information to the key people in government.

But, he says it would have been beneficial to have "broader groups" of scientists involved in the briefings on occasion.

Sir Patrick Vallance is asked about how economic advice fed into decision-making during the pandemic.

Vallance says there was a lack of "transparency" over the economic guidance that informed the government's response to Covid-19. By contrast, he says, scientific evidence was publicly available - including minutes from Sage meetings.

A note from Vallance's diary entry from October 2021 is read out, in which he talks about input from the Treasury as being "pure dogma and wrong throughout".

Vallance explains this as being something he wrote late at night while frustrated. He says there was an "imbalance" between the scientific advice and economic advice behind big decisions.

Image source, UK Covid inquiry

The lunch break is over and Sir Patrick Vallance is back in his seat. Stay with us as we bring you more of his testimony about government decision making during the pandemic at the UK Covid inquiry.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

The questioning over much of the last 30 minutes before lunch was exploring how scientific advice reached ministers during the pandemic.

A group of (mainly) independent scientists was tasked were drawing up that advice, sitting on a committee called Sage - or the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.

Minutes from their meetings were sent to ministers who Vallance and Sir Chris Whitty would also brief in person.

The minutes would then be published on the government's website, external, while academic scientists sitting on Sage would regularly appear on TV and in the media.

That caused some problems.

Some parts of government appeared not to want to ask Sage for advice because "it would just leak and people would talk about it".

At one point, Vallance writes in his diaries: "Secretary of State for Education says don't ask Sage as minutes get published".

In questioning, Sir Patrick said this tension was a "cultural issue" which should improve over time as more evidence is released and the situation becomes "the norm".

"I do think you need to give ministers the time to do things before it becomes public," he said.

"But my approach has been, the evidence itself can neither be harmful nor beneficial. It is what it is."

Hugh Pym
Health editor

Rumours that there would be a London lockdown were circulating in the middle of March 2020. They were dismissed by Downing Street.

Today, we learned for the first time that Sir Patrick Vallance himself had proposed such a measure - ahead of the government decision on 16 March - to ask people to stay at home if possible but not go for a full legal lockdown.

He told the inquiry that London was so far advanced with the spread of the virus that stricter measures were necessary. He said he had been reprimanded by a senior civil servant for raising it at a meeting without prior warning.

And Vallance told the inquiry that when he did suggest shutting down the capital, the then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak did not look pleased.

The final decision to introduce a full lockdown was left till 23 March 2020.

There's been lots to digest in this morning's evidence from former chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance.

He'll be back to face more questions from Andrew O'Connor KC at about 14:00. In the meantime, a recap:

• The inquiry was presented a diary entry by Vallance which stated Prime Minister Boris Johnson was "clearly bamboozled" by some of the graphs and data presented to him during the pandemic
• Vallance told the committee it was "hard work" at times trying to get Johnson to understand certain information
• Vallance went on to talk about public health advisory groups Sage and Spi-B, and how leaks into the media from certain members created an issue
• Another diary entry presented to the inquiry - dating to January 2020 - recorded Vallance writing that it was not "inevitable" that Covid would spread
• Vallance told the inquiry he wanted more clarity from the government on what an acceptable rate of mortality from the virus was - but instead the focus was on not overrunning the NHS
• The inquiry also heard about the differing views of Vallance and chief medical officer Chris Whitty in the early stages of the pandemic. Vallance believed lockdowns should have come in earlier
• Vallance was asked about what changed on the weekend of 14-15 March 2020 that prompted a lockdown to be declared. Vallance said information came to light showing the pandemic was "far bigger" and "moving faster" than had been earlier realised

Here's a bit more on Eat Out To Help Out, the controversial scheme bought in by then-chancellor Rishi Sunak in an effort to boost economic activity.

Vallance says Eat Out To Help Out "completely reversed" the government's messaging that mixing was high-risk.

The scheme effectively told the public "we will pay you to go into an environment with people from other households and mix in an indoor environment for periods extended over a couple of hours or more", Vallance says.

Vallance says that the Sage didn't see the scheme or were asked to provide advice on it before it was announced.

Vallance adds: "It would have been very obvious to anyone that this would inevitably cause and increase in transmission risk, and I think that would have been obvious to ministers."

O'Connor points out that on this matter, Vallance and Sunak's witness statements contradict each other.

As we've just reported, Sunak's statement is presented to the inquiry and it says: "I do not recall any concerns about the scheme being expressed during ministerial discussions."

Helen Catt
Political correspondent

The headline-grabbing comments from Sir Patrick Vallance's diaries involved Boris Johnson and claims he was "completely bamboozled" by some of the science.

Although he did suggest the then-prime minister wasn't alone among world leaders in that.

But today's evidence also hints towards the questions the current PM is likely to face.

Vallance said it was Rishi Sunak - who was then the chancellor - who had not looked "terribly pleased" when he suggested locking down London.

A later diary entry noted Sunak suggesting it was about "handling the scientists" rather than handling the virus.

Then there's Eat Out to Help Out.

For the first time, we saw a (very brief) extract from Sunak's written evidence, in which he said he "didn't recall" any concerns being raised about his flagship scheme.

In the very last words spoken before the inquiry broke for lunch though, Vallance said he'd be "very surprised if any minister didn't understand that these openings carried risk".

The inquiry has been hearing that minutes from advisory committees had occasionally been published in the press, and O'Connor asks if that created a problem in government.

Vallance says that it didn't stop the scientific group from implementing measures that they had wanted to, but sometimes they didn't ask certain questions.

In the diary extracts presented to the inquiry, Vallance had said ministers and departments, including the Department for Education, had avoided asking Sage questions.

Vallance adds that there was fear in government that if the evidence was out there it would force a minister's hand.

Instead, he says, we should normalise publishing evidence consistently as "the answer is not for more secrecy or redaction but a normalised position where evidence publication is seen as the right route".

While the inquiry is taking a break, we'll keep looking at what has been said - and will bring you more lines shortly. Stay with us.

Image source, PA Media

Patrick Vallance's answers are continuing to look at leaks which happened during the pandemic, and the role of Independent Sage.

Sage is the group of scientific advisers and experts set up to inform the government, while Independent Sage is not affiliated with the government - but does have some of the same members as the Sage group.

When confidential papers came to Spi-B and to Sage, Vallance notes, there was a concern about these papers appearing elsewhere.

“It was important that the output of those committees came to ministers who had a chance to reflect upon them before it was widely articulated elsewhere,” he says.

"If you join a government committee, it is then slightly odd to be on a committee that is set up to challenge the government committee."

O'Connor pulls up the minutes from a Sage meeting and questions Vallance on the relationship between scientists and the media.

The minutes say that Vallance said members speaking to the media on government measures was "unhelpful" and that "no one should be speaking to the media".

Vallance now argues that in fact there was an "open policy" that allowed Sage members to speak to the press on areas of their own expertise.

But, he says, he asked them not to speak about government policy because this "undermined" trust in the committees.

And ministers became wary of "leaks" coming out of the advisory groups later in the pandemic, he adds.

When advisers spoke to the press outside the formal mechanisms, he says, it was hard to build trust and retain influence inside of government.

Jim Reed
Health reporter

There is a lot of talk at the moment about a group called Spi-B.

This was a committee of around 60 behavioural scientists which fed into the main Sage group of scientific advisers.

Most of the group were independent academics, although some individuals working for the government were also members, including Prof David Halpern, who runs the 'nudge' unit in the cabinet office.

Through the pandemic it produced advice for ministers on subjects like adherence to lockdown measures and the impact of restricting mass gatherings.

Its co-chair, Prof James Rubin, who gave evidence earlier in this inquiry, said that often members felt their work went into a "black hole" when it was sent to the government.

Vallance elaborates further on comments made in his diary about Spi-B, the behaviour modelling body involved advising the government.

The inquiry hears about issues around confidentiality, with Vallance saying that a small number of between one and three members were making "statements in the press" about existing and planned policy.

That had the effect of undermining Spi-B, and it undermined trust in Spi-B from people in government, he says.

He adds members of Spi-B were "concerned about expressing their views”, for fears these would appear in a newspaper.

Moving on to public messaging during the pandemic, Andrew O'Connor asks why Spi-B, a group of social science experts who advise Sage, were ordered not to be involved in communications.

Communications were part of Spi-B's duties during the swine flu pandemic, O'Connor notes.

"I don't think it would be appropriate to have an academic group designing government communications," Vallance says.

"The point that the behavioural scientists are trying to give is the principles behind messaging not the actual construct of the communications."

Responsibility for communications lies with government bodies, like Public Health England, Vallance adds.