The inquiry lawyer, Hugo Keith KC, continues to question Johnson on the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.
Johnson says: "It was not, at the time, presented to me as something that would add to the budget of risk."
However, Keith says this presentation came from the government rather than the scientists, and that at no time were scientists consulted over the plans.
Johnson says that he thought scientists had already seen the plans. The Eat Out to Help Our was "not secret" and had been well-publicised, he says. He says the scheme was discussed in meeting where the scientists "must've been present".
"I remember being surprised, when, later - in September 2020 - I heard that Chris [Whitty] said it was 'eat out to help the virus'," he tells the inquiry. "I didn't remember... any previous controversy about it."
Did Rishi Sunak's Eat Out to Help Out scheme help spread the virus?
Nick Eardley
Political correspondent
Did encouraging people
to eat in restaurants help spread the virus in the run up to the second wave?
Some of the scientists have made it clear here that they were not consulted.
We've heard that Chief Medical Officer Sir Chris Whitty referred to it as "eat out to help out the
virus".
Johnson is defending
the scheme, saying he didn't think it was a gamble and it wasn't presented to
him as such.
But this is also likely
to be a significant part of the questioning Rishi Sunak will face when he
appears before the inquiry on Monday.
Remember Sunak was the chancellor at
the time - the man behind the scheme.
Johnson explains the thinking around Eat Out to Help Out
The inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC is beginning his questions by asking Johnson about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme - which offered discounts on certain meals
in August 2020.
Johnson describes his thinking at the time: "The country had made a huge effort... the disease was no longer spreading in the way that it had been."
And if the country was going to "take advantage" of the "freedom" afforded by "collective efforts", he adds, he believes it made sense "to make sure that they actually had some customers".
"If it was safe to open hospitality then it must be safe for people to go to hospitality."
As a reminder, the government's chief scientific adviser during the pandemic, Sir Patrick Vallance, said at the inquiry last month that the Eat Out to Help Out scheme is "highly likely" to have increased Covid deaths in the UK.
Balance between health and wealth
Jim Reed
Reporting from the inquiry
Expect the key theme today to be the balance between slowing the spread of the virus and protecting the economy.
That was the trade-off the government had to contend with in the summer and autumn of 2020.
It influenced the way the safe distance rule in shops and hospitality was cut from 2m to 1m, for example.
And also the Eat Out to Help Out scheme - which the inquiry is now starting to talk about in detail.
By September 2020 many of the government's scientific advisers were pushing for tighter controls as cases of Covid started rising sharply.
However, others - including then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak - were increasingly concerned about the risk to jobs and the economy caused by lockdown restrictions.
Inquiry resumes
UK Covid-19 InquiryCopyright: UK Covid-19 Inquiry
Today's session has just begun. Boris Johnson, the former prime minister, is being questioned again by lead counsel for the inquiry, Hugo Keith KC.
We'll bring you updates right on this page throughout the day - stick with us.
Who is Hugo Keith KC?
PA MediaCopyright: PA Media
Boris Johnson will again be questioned by the lead counsel to the inquiry, Hugo Keith KC.
His CV includes advising Chelsea FC on its sale in May 2022, and representing Queen Elizabeth in the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
He appeared in the inquest of Alexander Litvinenko - the British-naturalised Russian defector who died in 2006 of polonium poisoning - and was appointed lead counsel to the inquests into the London Bombings of 7 July 2005.
Rishi Sunak confirmed for next week
Jim Reed
Reporting from the inquiry
The inquiry has just confirmed that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will be giving evidence on Monday. He'll be the final witness in this phase - or module.
There will then be closing statements from lawyers representing the core participants on Wednesday and Thursday.
From January the inquiry will then travel to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to look at decision making in those nations of the UK.
Cabinet secretary Simon Case could not give evidence in this module because he was on sick leave.
Baroness Hallet said she still expected to call him back next year in a special session when he returns to work.
Covid inquiryCopyright: Covid inquiry
Day one recap: Johnson's reputation on trial
Iain Watson
Reporting from the inquiry
Video content
Video caption: Boris Johnson apologises for suffering of families and victims of the Covid pandemicBoris Johnson apologises for suffering of families and victims of the Covid pandemic
On Wednesday, there was some emotion not just from the berevaed
families in attendance but from Boris Johnson as he talked of "tragic" 2020.
But mostly his tone was measured, with little of the "Boris bombast" on display.
And there was perhaps a bit more contrition than some
would have predicted.
The inquiry is about learning lessons - not apportioning blame.
So Boris Johnson is not on trial here. But what's left of his political reputation is.
Analysis
Attention turns to autumn and winter 2020
Nick Triggle
Reporting from the inquiry
The first day
of Johnson’s testimony was dominated by the lead up to the first lockdown –
and whether more action should have been taken sooner.
Day two is
likely to get into what happened in the second wave during autumn and winter.
More people
died in the second six months of the pandemic than did in the first.
That is despite
much more being known about the virus, how to treat it and from December
onwards the vaccination programme being rolled out.
What is more,
schools closed again – at least for the majority of pupils.
Why the UK did
not do better at this point is one of the key questions of the whole inquiry.
It was a period
– in the words of Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, of “bunny hopping”
around between slamming on the brakes and putting the foot on the accelerator
as ministers veered between opening up, regional restrictions lockdowns.
Expect the lawyers for the inquiry to push him hard on the decisions taken
during this period.
BBCCopyright: BBC
Johnson arrives early for second day of questioning
EPACopyright: EPA
As he did yesterday, the former prime minister arrived early at Dorland House in central London for the inquiry.
Boris Johnson walked past some protestors as he made his way into the building before 07:00 GMT.
If you're wondering, the bobble hat - seen last night and this morning - is from Grimsby Town Football Club.
Analysis
Johnson was shorn of theatrics on day one
Chris Mason
Political editor, reporting from the inquiry
Boris Johnson's evidence on day one was, for the most
part, shorn of his usual theatrics.
Sitting on the press bench in the hearing
room, the contempt in which Johnson was held by many of the families of the
bereaved sitting metres away was obvious.
The thrust of his case was contrition, with hindsight, at his tardiness in clocking the imminent scale of
the pandemic in early 2020.
That was mixed with his best effort to take on his
former colleagues who have questioned his competence and the culture of his
Downing Street operation.
Crude WhatsApp exchanges were framed by Johnson as entirely
typical of the style of many on the messaging service.
Private, internal anger
at his failings was a good thing, he claimed - a "disputatious culture" better
than a "quietly acquiescent" one.
The number of times he said "I
can't remember" and "I don't know" stood out.
Johnson sought
to remind the inquiry of his central role as a pandemic prime minister; judging
trade-offs of a colossal nature; confronting a scenario without modern
precedent.
The question not asked explicitly - but hanging over the inquiry - was: would the UK have coped better had there been a different prime
minister?
Boris Johnson will fear evidence is already accumulating to back
that. Wednesday was his first stab at trying to take on that hunch.
Welcome back
Good morning, and welcome back to our live coverage of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry.
Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson is due back at 10:00 to give evidence for a second day.
We'll have full text coverage, analysis, and fact-checking from our team of reporters here.
As always, you can watch all the evidence live by pressing play at the top of the page.
Goodbye for now
PA MediaCopyright: PA Media
That's it for day one of Boris Johnson's evidence to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry.
We'll be back on the same page on Thursday when Johnson returns at 10:00 GMT - please join us then.
Today's editors were Owen Amos and Marita Moloney, with reporting from Thomas Mackintosh, Tara Mewawalla, Emily Atkinson, Anna Boyd, Jim Reed, Iain Watson, Nick Triggle, Henry Zeffman, Hugh Pym, Ellie Price, and Helena Rothman.
What we heard on Johnson's first day at the inquiry
Boris Johnson’s first day in front of the inquiry
has come to an end. Here’s a look at the key lines from the
day:
Let's start at the beginning: Johnson opened his evidence with an apology, saying he was “deeply
sorry for the pain and the loss and the suffering of those victims and their
families."
Another sorry: He also apologised to former senior civil servant Helen MacNamara for not "calling out" Dominic Cummings' disparaging remarks about her
– and admitted meetings on Covid were “too male dominated”.
A defective health secretary: The
inquiry’s heard a lot of criticism of Matt Hancock’s role during the pandemic.
Johnson said he “stuck by him” and broadly praised his work, despite his “defects”.
Late to twig: After
seeing scenes from outbreaks in Italy, Johnson said he should have recognised “sooner”
the seriousness of Covid, while also defending not
chairing five Cobra meetings in early 2020.
PA MediaCopyright: PA Media
Emotions ran high: At one point, Johnson fought back tears as he recalled “tragic, tragic 2020”.
That handshake: The ex-PM admitted that “in retrospect” he shouldn’t have shaken hands with Covid patients at the Royal Free Hospital in north London on 1 March 2020.
Mass gatherings: He also said he should have stopped major sporting events in March 2020 - including the Cheltenham Festival and Champions League football matches – from going ahead.
A rare intervention: Asked by the inquiry chair whether he'd considered anti-lockdown arguments before it was implemented on 23 March 2020, Johnson said by then “we had run out of wiggle room”.
Choice language: The inquiry was also shown a document on long Covid, on which in October 2020 Johnson had scrawled "bollocks" in the margin and wrote "this is Gulf War syndrome stuff" - language he said he regrets using.
Interruptions: At the start of today's session, the inquiry chair ordered the removal of four people who interrupted the hearing. Bereaved families have gathered in protest outside the inquiry all day.
ReutersCopyright: Reuters
Session ends after more than five hours of Johnson evidence
Today's session of the Covid inquiry has now ended and Boris Johnson is expected to exit Dorland House in London shortly.
He was questioned by inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC for more than five hours, but he's only half way through giving his evidence to the inquiry as he'll be back again tomorrow.
We've still got some updates and analysis to bring you after a big day at the inquiry, so stay with us.
No indication that Hancock was inquiry sacrificial lamb
Iain Watson
Political correspondent
From his initial appearance at a Commons select committee
- where he described the health department as a "smoking ruin" - to his regular
social media posts, Dominic Cummings has laid into Matt Hancock.
But Boris Johnson's evidence seems to belie the suggestion
that the former health secretary was kept in place in order to become a ritual sacrifice at the
inquiry.
He has defended him twice today.
Although Johnson thought about sacking him (and was
being urged by Cummings and the then cabinet secretary Sir Mark
Sedwill to do so) he said that despite his "defects" he did a good job and he praises Hancock's intellect and
his communication skills.
'I didn't see any advantage to the country to sacking Hancock' - Johnson
Getty ImagesCopyright: Getty Images
Hancock and Johnson at a meeting in September 2020 - in the summer, the inquiry heard, advisers had told Johnson to sack the health secretaryImage caption: Hancock and Johnson at a meeting in September 2020 - in the summer, the inquiry heard, advisers had told Johnson to sack the health secretary
We're coming towards the end of Johnson's first day of evidence to the Covid inquiry, and before wrapping up, Hugo Keith brings up former Health Secretary Matt Hancock again.
Keith asks whether Johnson was aware that some people perceived the Department of Health as "overwhelmed" and "inefficient" - and if he was, why he did not address them by replacing Hancock?
After a lot of back and forth, Johnson finally says that, under the circumstances, he thought Hancock was doing "a good job" and was "on top of the subject".
"Whatever his failings may or may not have been, I didn't see any advantage to the country at a critical time in moving him in exchange for someone else, when I couldn't be sure that we were necessarily going to be trading up," he says.
Johnson apologises to MacNamara for Cummings comments
Iain Watson
Political correspondent
My goodness, the apologies are coming thick and fast now.
As he also mentioned earlier, Boris Johnson has apologised to the former senior civil servant Helen MacNamara
for not "calling out" Dominic Cummings' disparaging remarks about her on a
shared WhatsApp group.
MacNamara, the former deputy cabinet secretary, told the inquiry last month that a "toxic" environment affected decision-making during the coronavirus crisis.
She also accused Johnson of failing to tackle "misogynistic language" used by Cummings - you can watch a brief snippet from her inquiry appearance below:
Video content
Video caption: MacNamara: 'Not a pleasant place to work' with CummingsMacNamara: 'Not a pleasant place to work' with Cummings
Johnson on No 10 culture: I wanted people to speak their minds
Boris Johnson has given almost five hours of evidence to the inquiry today, which has now moved on to discussing the culture at No 10.
Johnson says it was "argumentative" but stresses that it needed an atmosphere where people could "say things that were going to be controversial".
Inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC highlights a long list of evidence that has been heard so far, pointing to the fact that there were systemic problems in No 10 and the Cabinet Office - including "God complexes", "misogyny" and "leadership issues".
Johnson says that because the country "needed continuous urgent action" he wanted people to "speak their minds without fear of being embarrassed" in meetings.
Quote Message: That's one of the reasons why I sometimes spoke bluntly and freely in meetings - I wanted to give people cover to do the same."
That's one of the reasons why I sometimes spoke bluntly and freely in meetings - I wanted to give people cover to do the same."
Will second Johnson apology be a comfort to bereaved families?
Iain Watson
Political correspondent
We witnessed a second apology from Boris Johnson this
afternoon.
He said he regretted the "hurt
and offence" caused by his questioning of long Covid as a medical condition - he
had continued to compare it to Gulf War syndrome until mid-2021.
He said he hadn't got a paper on it to June 2021.
Some of the families who have suffered from it are at, or are just outside, the inquiry's
proceedings.
It's not clear that explanation for what they saw as
disparaging remarks will be sufficient for them to revise their opinion of the
ex-PM
Live Reporting
Edited by Owen Amos and Laura Gozzi
All times stated are UK
Get involved
Was it 'eat out to help the virus'?
The inquiry lawyer, Hugo Keith KC, continues to question Johnson on the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.
Johnson says: "It was not, at the time, presented to me as something that would add to the budget of risk."
However, Keith says this presentation came from the government rather than the scientists, and that at no time were scientists consulted over the plans.
Johnson says that he thought scientists had already seen the plans. The Eat Out to Help Our was "not secret" and had been well-publicised, he says. He says the scheme was discussed in meeting where the scientists "must've been present".
"I remember being surprised, when, later - in September 2020 - I heard that Chris [Whitty] said it was 'eat out to help the virus'," he tells the inquiry. "I didn't remember... any previous controversy about it."
Did Rishi Sunak's Eat Out to Help Out scheme help spread the virus?
Nick Eardley
Political correspondent
Did encouraging people to eat in restaurants help spread the virus in the run up to the second wave?
Some of the scientists have made it clear here that they were not consulted. We've heard that Chief Medical Officer Sir Chris Whitty referred to it as "eat out to help out the virus".
Johnson is defending the scheme, saying he didn't think it was a gamble and it wasn't presented to him as such.
But this is also likely to be a significant part of the questioning Rishi Sunak will face when he appears before the inquiry on Monday.
Remember Sunak was the chancellor at the time - the man behind the scheme.
Johnson explains the thinking around Eat Out to Help Out
The inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC is beginning his questions by asking Johnson about the Eat Out to Help Out scheme - which offered discounts on certain meals in August 2020.
Johnson describes his thinking at the time: "The country had made a huge effort... the disease was no longer spreading in the way that it had been."
And if the country was going to "take advantage" of the "freedom" afforded by "collective efforts", he adds, he believes it made sense "to make sure that they actually had some customers".
"If it was safe to open hospitality then it must be safe for people to go to hospitality."
As a reminder, the government's chief scientific adviser during the pandemic, Sir Patrick Vallance, said at the inquiry last month that the Eat Out to Help Out scheme is "highly likely" to have increased Covid deaths in the UK.
Balance between health and wealth
Jim Reed
Reporting from the inquiry
Expect the key theme today to be the balance between slowing the spread of the virus and protecting the economy.
That was the trade-off the government had to contend with in the summer and autumn of 2020.
It influenced the way the safe distance rule in shops and hospitality was cut from 2m to 1m, for example.
And also the Eat Out to Help Out scheme - which the inquiry is now starting to talk about in detail.
By September 2020 many of the government's scientific advisers were pushing for tighter controls as cases of Covid started rising sharply.
However, others - including then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak - were increasingly concerned about the risk to jobs and the economy caused by lockdown restrictions.
Inquiry resumes
Today's session has just begun. Boris Johnson, the former prime minister, is being questioned again by lead counsel for the inquiry, Hugo Keith KC.
We'll bring you updates right on this page throughout the day - stick with us.
Who is Hugo Keith KC?
Boris Johnson will again be questioned by the lead counsel to the inquiry, Hugo Keith KC.
His CV includes advising Chelsea FC on its sale in May 2022, and representing Queen Elizabeth in the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
He appeared in the inquest of Alexander Litvinenko - the British-naturalised Russian defector who died in 2006 of polonium poisoning - and was appointed lead counsel to the inquests into the London Bombings of 7 July 2005.
Rishi Sunak confirmed for next week
Jim Reed
Reporting from the inquiry
The inquiry has just confirmed that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will be giving evidence on Monday. He'll be the final witness in this phase - or module.
There will then be closing statements from lawyers representing the core participants on Wednesday and Thursday.
From January the inquiry will then travel to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to look at decision making in those nations of the UK.
Cabinet secretary Simon Case could not give evidence in this module because he was on sick leave.
Baroness Hallet said she still expected to call him back next year in a special session when he returns to work.
Day one recap: Johnson's reputation on trial
Iain Watson
Reporting from the inquiry
Video content
On Wednesday, there was some emotion not just from the berevaed families in attendance but from Boris Johnson as he talked of "tragic" 2020.
But mostly his tone was measured, with little of the "Boris bombast" on display.
And there was perhaps a bit more contrition than some would have predicted.
The inquiry is about learning lessons - not apportioning blame.
So Boris Johnson is not on trial here. But what's left of his political reputation is.
Attention turns to autumn and winter 2020
Nick Triggle
Reporting from the inquiry
The first day of Johnson’s testimony was dominated by the lead up to the first lockdown – and whether more action should have been taken sooner.
Day two is likely to get into what happened in the second wave during autumn and winter.
More people died in the second six months of the pandemic than did in the first.
That is despite much more being known about the virus, how to treat it and from December onwards the vaccination programme being rolled out.
What is more, schools closed again – at least for the majority of pupils.
Why the UK did not do better at this point is one of the key questions of the whole inquiry.
It was a period – in the words of Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, of “bunny hopping” around between slamming on the brakes and putting the foot on the accelerator as ministers veered between opening up, regional restrictions lockdowns.
Expect the lawyers for the inquiry to push him hard on the decisions taken during this period.
Johnson arrives early for second day of questioning
As he did yesterday, the former prime minister arrived early at Dorland House in central London for the inquiry.
Boris Johnson walked past some protestors as he made his way into the building before 07:00 GMT.
If you're wondering, the bobble hat - seen last night and this morning - is from Grimsby Town Football Club.
Johnson was shorn of theatrics on day one
Chris Mason
Political editor, reporting from the inquiry
Boris Johnson's evidence on day one was, for the most part, shorn of his usual theatrics.
Sitting on the press bench in the hearing room, the contempt in which Johnson was held by many of the families of the bereaved sitting metres away was obvious.
The thrust of his case was contrition, with hindsight, at his tardiness in clocking the imminent scale of the pandemic in early 2020.
That was mixed with his best effort to take on his former colleagues who have questioned his competence and the culture of his Downing Street operation.
Crude WhatsApp exchanges were framed by Johnson as entirely typical of the style of many on the messaging service.
Private, internal anger at his failings was a good thing, he claimed - a "disputatious culture" better than a "quietly acquiescent" one.
The number of times he said "I can't remember" and "I don't know" stood out.
Johnson sought to remind the inquiry of his central role as a pandemic prime minister; judging trade-offs of a colossal nature; confronting a scenario without modern precedent.
The question not asked explicitly - but hanging over the inquiry - was: would the UK have coped better had there been a different prime minister?
Boris Johnson will fear evidence is already accumulating to back that. Wednesday was his first stab at trying to take on that hunch.
Welcome back
Good morning, and welcome back to our live coverage of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry.
Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson is due back at 10:00 to give evidence for a second day.
We'll have full text coverage, analysis, and fact-checking from our team of reporters here.
As always, you can watch all the evidence live by pressing play at the top of the page.
Goodbye for now
That's it for day one of Boris Johnson's evidence to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry.
We'll be back on the same page on Thursday when Johnson returns at 10:00 GMT - please join us then.
Our full report from today's hearing is here.
Today's editors were Owen Amos and Marita Moloney, with reporting from Thomas Mackintosh, Tara Mewawalla, Emily Atkinson, Anna Boyd, Jim Reed, Iain Watson, Nick Triggle, Henry Zeffman, Hugh Pym, Ellie Price, and Helena Rothman.
What we heard on Johnson's first day at the inquiry
Boris Johnson’s first day in front of the inquiry has come to an end. Here’s a look at the key lines from the day:
Let's start at the beginning: Johnson opened his evidence with an apology, saying he was “deeply sorry for the pain and the loss and the suffering of those victims and their families."
Another sorry: He also apologised to former senior civil servant Helen MacNamara for not "calling out" Dominic Cummings' disparaging remarks about her – and admitted meetings on Covid were “too male dominated”.
A defective health secretary: The inquiry’s heard a lot of criticism of Matt Hancock’s role during the pandemic. Johnson said he “stuck by him” and broadly praised his work, despite his “defects”.
Late to twig: After seeing scenes from outbreaks in Italy, Johnson said he should have recognised “sooner” the seriousness of Covid, while also defending not chairing five Cobra meetings in early 2020.
Emotions ran high: At one point, Johnson fought back tears as he recalled “tragic, tragic 2020”.
That handshake: The ex-PM admitted that “in retrospect” he shouldn’t have shaken hands with Covid patients at the Royal Free Hospital in north London on 1 March 2020.
Mass gatherings: He also said he should have stopped major sporting events in March 2020 - including the Cheltenham Festival and Champions League football matches – from going ahead.
A rare intervention: Asked by the inquiry chair whether he'd considered anti-lockdown arguments before it was implemented on 23 March 2020, Johnson said by then “we had run out of wiggle room”.
Choice language: The inquiry was also shown a document on long Covid, on which in October 2020 Johnson had scrawled "bollocks" in the margin and wrote "this is Gulf War syndrome stuff" - language he said he regrets using.
Interruptions: At the start of today's session, the inquiry chair ordered the removal of four people who interrupted the hearing. Bereaved families have gathered in protest outside the inquiry all day.
Session ends after more than five hours of Johnson evidence
Today's session of the Covid inquiry has now ended and Boris Johnson is expected to exit Dorland House in London shortly.
He was questioned by inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC for more than five hours, but he's only half way through giving his evidence to the inquiry as he'll be back again tomorrow.
We've still got some updates and analysis to bring you after a big day at the inquiry, so stay with us.
No indication that Hancock was inquiry sacrificial lamb
Iain Watson
Political correspondent
From his initial appearance at a Commons select committee - where he described the health department as a "smoking ruin" - to his regular social media posts, Dominic Cummings has laid into Matt Hancock.
But Boris Johnson's evidence seems to belie the suggestion that the former health secretary was kept in place in order to become a ritual sacrifice at the inquiry.
He has defended him twice today.
Although Johnson thought about sacking him (and was being urged by Cummings and the then cabinet secretary Sir Mark Sedwill to do so) he said that despite his "defects" he did a good job and he praises Hancock's intellect and his communication skills.
'I didn't see any advantage to the country to sacking Hancock' - Johnson
We're coming towards the end of Johnson's first day of evidence to the Covid inquiry, and before wrapping up, Hugo Keith brings up former Health Secretary Matt Hancock again.
Keith asks whether Johnson was aware that some people perceived the Department of Health as "overwhelmed" and "inefficient" - and if he was, why he did not address them by replacing Hancock?
After a lot of back and forth, Johnson finally says that, under the circumstances, he thought Hancock was doing "a good job" and was "on top of the subject".
"Whatever his failings may or may not have been, I didn't see any advantage to the country at a critical time in moving him in exchange for someone else, when I couldn't be sure that we were necessarily going to be trading up," he says.
Johnson apologises to MacNamara for Cummings comments
Iain Watson
Political correspondent
My goodness, the apologies are coming thick and fast now.
As he also mentioned earlier, Boris Johnson has apologised to the former senior civil servant Helen MacNamara for not "calling out" Dominic Cummings' disparaging remarks about her on a shared WhatsApp group.
MacNamara, the former deputy cabinet secretary, told the inquiry last month that a "toxic" environment affected decision-making during the coronavirus crisis.
She also accused Johnson of failing to tackle "misogynistic language" used by Cummings - you can watch a brief snippet from her inquiry appearance below:
Video content
Johnson on No 10 culture: I wanted people to speak their minds
Boris Johnson has given almost five hours of evidence to the inquiry today, which has now moved on to discussing the culture at No 10.
Johnson says it was "argumentative" but stresses that it needed an atmosphere where people could "say things that were going to be controversial".
Inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC highlights a long list of evidence that has been heard so far, pointing to the fact that there were systemic problems in No 10 and the Cabinet Office - including "God complexes", "misogyny" and "leadership issues".
Johnson says that because the country "needed continuous urgent action" he wanted people to "speak their minds without fear of being embarrassed" in meetings.
Will second Johnson apology be a comfort to bereaved families?
Iain Watson
Political correspondent
We witnessed a second apology from Boris Johnson this afternoon.
He said he regretted the "hurt and offence" caused by his questioning of long Covid as a medical condition - he had continued to compare it to Gulf War syndrome until mid-2021.
He said he hadn't got a paper on it to June 2021.
Some of the families who have suffered from it are at, or are just outside, the inquiry's proceedings.
It's not clear that explanation for what they saw as disparaging remarks will be sufficient for them to revise their opinion of the ex-PM