During the pandemic, Boris Johnson purposely avoided interacting with devolved administrations due to political motives, as reported in the live coverage.

The day’s proceedings have come to a close. Here’s a recap of the main events:

• Boris Johnson stated that he did not collaborate with devolved administrations due to political motives. He was reminded of his previous statement that it would not look good for the UK prime minister to regularly meet with ministers from other devolved administrations. He was also questioned about allegations from one of his advisers that he purposely avoided working with the Scottish first minister during the pandemic because of their personal dislike for each other. This decision could have had negative consequences on the effectiveness of Covid prevention measures in the UK.

• The ex-prime minister was labeled as “selfish” and “unsuitable for leadership” by grieving families. Their representative stated, “Despite being aware of the need for protective measures to save lives, his recent actions have demonstrated a reluctance due to concerns about his image in the eyes of certain media outlets.”

• Johnson stated that scientists did not participate in discussions regarding the implementation of the “eat out to help out” initiative prior to its launch. He admitted that he had assumed they were involved in talks with the Treasury and was taken aback when he discovered that they were not consulted.

• Johnson was presented with multiple occurrences of Patrick Vallance crediting him with the phrase “let it rip” in diary entries from the same time period. Johnson has refuted using the phrase. The investigation revealed several diary entries from Vallance recalling Johnson using the phrase “let it rip”.

Following his second testimony at the inquiry, Becky Kummer, a representative for Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, stated:

Today’s inquiry revealed that Johnson’s assertions regarding the pandemic crumble when examined closely.

He did not accurately handle important decisions, neglecting to address the seriousness of the pandemic in early 2020 and resulting in severe lack of preparedness. He also did not take the necessary steps to learn from his errors, leading to a second wave with even more fatalities than the first. The National Health Service (NHS) was overwhelmed, a fact that he would be aware of if he had met with the numerous families who lost loved ones due to challenges accessing hospital care and necessary treatments. The UK did not have an average death toll, but rather had the second highest number of deaths in Western Europe.

Today, his messages revealed that he hesitated to take necessary precautions to protect lives, possibly due to concern for his reputation among certain media outlets.

Had he prioritized public health over his own vanity, countless individuals, including my father, may still be alive today. The pandemic has taught us numerous lessons that could potentially prevent loss of life in the future, and one of them is certainly that someone as self-centered as Boris Johnson is not suitable for a position of power.

At the end of the day’s proceedings, Johnson directs his remarks to Lady Hallett. He repeats the remarks that were previously shared with journalists before he began testifying.

The person informs the leader of the investigation that although it may not be relevant to her job, he wishes she could motivate the world to uncover the true source of Covid.

Hallett reminds him that the situation falls outside the scope of her duties, and that he was the one who established those duties.

Brian Stanton, representing the British Medical Association, inquires Johnson about the language used to describe the lifting of Covid restrictions in July 2021 as “freedom”. He questions to what degree the government may have misled the public by creating the perception that the pandemic was over, only to impose restrictions again shortly after.

According to Johnson, the advancements achieved through the vaccination program make it appropriate to use this terminology.

Samuel Jacobs, on behalf of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), inquires about the former prime minister’s stance, stated in 2021, that “we cannot engage in the process of consulting with employees and trade unions. They must all return to work. All those who are avoiding work and lazy.”

He inquires of Johnson if his behavior, which was perceived as dismissive, was not fitting for a prime minister.

According to Johnson, his administration did not neglect the challenges faced by working individuals. He asserts that the lockdowns were adversely affecting those with lower incomes and the solution was to get them back to work.

Jacobs challenges him about his decision to reject the idea of consulting with representatives of workers, asking if it could be seen as promoting a negative culture. Johnson responds that it is not necessarily the case. He then discusses the success of the vaccination program and how it has enabled a return to work.

Jacobs inquires about the reasoning behind not involving workers’ representatives in the consultation process. Although Johnson was quoted as dismissing this consultation as “nonsense”, he asserts that he has no objections to it.

According to him, his concern was focused on the hindrance of getting people back to work, not on any other factors.

Johnson stated that his main worry was that if approached, individuals in the workforce might strive to uphold the less rigid working schedules that he believed would not be advantageous for the economy.

He expressed concern that individuals may not readily recognize the advancements made by the vaccination program in facilitating a return to the workplace. He also anticipated a resistance to change and a preference for continuing the work from home trend.

Davies inquires with Johnson about the lessons that were gained in safeguarding individuals from domestic violence during the initial lockdown, and how they were applied in subsequent lockdowns. Johnson extensively discusses the legislation implemented by his government, but Davies reminds him that it is not applicable to lockdown measures.

Johnson concludes by stating that the government made investments in telephone hotlines.

Liz Davies, representing multiple organizations that combat violence against women and girls, inquires of Johnson why his administration did not include domestic abuse as a valid reason for leaving one’s home before 2021. Johnson admits that, upon reflection, his ministers should have taken more action and made it more apparent.

Johnson states that considering the negative impact of lockdowns on both older and younger individuals, it was logical to explore alternative methods and assess the effectiveness of ongoing lockdowns. However, ultimately there were no other options available.

Danny Friedman KC, representing organizations for the disabled, questions Johnson regarding his statement that elderly individuals were “inevitably going to pass away, have lived a long life, and should simply accept their fate rather than causing harm to the economy.” He inquires if Johnson’s language reflects discriminatory attitudes towards age.

Johnson disputes this, asserting that he made an effort to accurately portray a current debate and that he received feedback from older individuals supporting his stance.

The chair reprimands Friedman for using emotional language in his question, which Lady Hallett states she did not authorize.

Menon inquires about the reason behind England’s stricter measures compared to Scotland and Wales in terms of exempting young children from certain restrictions. Johnson explains that the UK government’s intention was to decrease the spread of the virus.

According to Menon, the investigation has not found any proof that the strategies used by the Scottish and Welsh governments were riskier than those implemented by the UK government in England.

Rajiv Menon KC is currently speaking to Johnson on behalf of multiple organizations focused on children’s rights. He is questioning Johnson’s statement that schools would be the last establishments to close and the first to reopen, in comparison to the earlier reopening of pubs and hairdressers.

According to Johnson, the government considered prolonging the school year once schools could resume, but ministers believed it was more logical – considering the regular school schedule – to have them closed for the summer and reopen at the typical time.

Anthony Metzer, a KC lawyer, is questioning Johnson for the long Covid groups. He is inquiring if he, like his previous advisor Dominic Cummings and former health secretary Matt Hancock, received any guidance on long Covid.

He was confronted with the fact that, despite not having any proof to back up his doubt – and despite being urged by his advisors and peers to recognize it, Johnson continued to be unconvinced that it was a significant issue for a significant period of time.

Johnson stated that he was not implying that the issue was nonexistent, but rather, he desired proof of its severity. When questioned about his claim that the impacts of long Covid were “nonsense,” he was asked why he did not request the published NIHR report on the matter.

Johnson attempts to assert that he did request for certain research and eventually came across evidence on long Covid. However, he is ultimately compelled to admit that he never requested to see the NIHR report.

According to Johnson, the pandemic’s unequal impact on people of color was not due to any medical reasons. He believes it was because they were more likely to be on the “frontline” and therefore at a higher risk of exposure.

Thomas helps him up and inquires if he was not cognizant of the concept of “institutional racism in the NHS” that was referenced by former health secretary Matt Hancock and outlined in a report by Public Health England. He requests the prime minister to confirm that his stance, as prime minister, is that he had no knowledge of that report.

Johnson states that the evidence he witnessed did not align with that conclusion.

Leslie Thomas KC, representing the Federation of Ethnic Minority Healthcare Organisations (FEMHO), is now posing questions to Johnson. He inquires if the former prime minister believes it is crucial to recognize the sacrifices made by healthcare workers, particularly those from minority ethnic backgrounds. Additionally, he asks if Johnson feels he personally owes a debt to these workers after his own hospitalizations. Johnson responds affirmatively to both inquiries.

Thomas continues his conversation with Johnson, inquiring about Patrick Vallance’s belief that the healthcare discrepancies observed during the pandemic were easily predicted and worsened existing inequalities. Thomas questions why the government did not take action to lessen the potential severe impact of the pandemic on disadvantaged and minority populations.

Johnson stated during the inquiry that he was informed from the beginning that lockdowns could disproportionately affect individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. He implied that this was one factor that made him hesitant to implement a lockdown.

Johnson is being requested to explain the exact steps his government implemented to safeguard these individuals. He states that at the time of the initial nationwide lockdown, the government was not fully aware of how the virus would affect various groups.

Thomas explains that he had inquired about particular protective measures before proceeding. Johnson interrupts and states that it was challenging to implement measures until the causes of the discrepancies were determined.

The investigation has been ongoing for approximately ten minutes.