LIVE - Updated at 13:34
Latest updates: Covid inquiry's counsel says evidence will demonstrate government devoted more resource to influenza pandemic.
The Covid inquiry hearing this morning opened with a moving video showing relatives who lost loved ones during the pandemic talking about their experience.
But the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice (CBFFJ) group has complained that not enough attention is being paid at this stage of the inquiry to bereaved relatives. In a statement Jo Goodman and Matt Fowler, CBFFJ co-founders, said:
The inquiry's inadequate "Every Story Matters" project and decision to only call up one of our 6,500 members to speak in the first module have been incredibly disappointing and hurtful. But far worse, they risk crucial learnings being missed, which could cost lives in the future. The inquiry has no hope of understanding the key decisions made in government if it doesn't understand their impact. Today we have a simple message for Baroness Hallett: We will never forget the loved ones we lost in the pandemic, and we will do whatever it takes to ensure that their deaths are learnt from so others don't have to face the same awful, and preventable, fate.
The inquiry's inadequate "Every Story Matters" project and decision to only call up one of our 6,500 members to speak in the first module have been incredibly disappointing and hurtful. But far worse, they risk crucial learnings being missed, which could cost lives in the future. The inquiry has no hope of understanding the key decisions made in government if it doesn't understand their impact.
Today we have a simple message for Baroness Hallett: We will never forget the loved ones we lost in the pandemic, and we will do whatever it takes to ensure that their deaths are learnt from so others don't have to face the same awful, and preventable, fate.
CBFFJ and 38 Degrees arranged for an ad van to display messages from bereaved families outside the inquiry hearing this morning.
Hallett addressed this point in her opening remarks this morning, saying she had a "very difficult balance" to strike in deciding who to call to give evidence. (See 10.11am.)
Hallett says the concerns of the bereaved will "always be at the heart of the inquiry". She says:
I have promised many times that those who suffered hardship and loss are and will always be at the heart of the inquiry. And I have done my very best within the constraints upon me of time, resources and my terms of reference to fulfil that promise. I know that there are those who feel that the inquiry has not sufficiently recognised their loss or listened to them in the way that they feel appropriate but I hope that they will better understand, as the inquiry progresses, the very difficult balance I have had to strike. I hope they will understand when they see the results of the work we are doing that I am listening to them. Their loss will be recognised.
I have promised many times that those who suffered hardship and loss are and will always be at the heart of the inquiry. And I have done my very best within the constraints upon me of time, resources and my terms of reference to fulfil that promise.
I know that there are those who feel that the inquiry has not sufficiently recognised their loss or listened to them in the way that they feel appropriate but I hope that they will better understand, as the inquiry progresses, the very difficult balance I have had to strike.
I hope they will understand when they see the results of the work we are doing that I am listening to them.
Their loss will be recognised.
She says the inquiry will shortly play a 17-minute video about the impact of the pandemic. It is very moving, she says. She says people in the room who do not want to watch are free to leave.
Keith says the year before the pandemic a huge amount of government planning was taking place relating to Brexit, and the risk of a no-deal Brexit. He goes on:
The pandemic struck the United Kingdom just as it was leaving the European Union. That departure required an enormous amount of planning and preparation, particularly to address what were likely to be the severe consequences of a no-deal exit on food and medicine supplies, travel and transport, business borders and so on. It is clear that such planning, from 2018 onwards, crowded out and prevented some or perhaps a majority of the improvements that central government itself understood were required to be made to resilience planning and preparedness. Did the attention therefore paid to the risks of a no-deal exit - Operation Yellowhammer as it was known - drain the resources and capacity that should have been continuing the fight against the next pandemic, that should have been utilised in preparing the United Kingdom for civil emergency? Or did all that generic and operational planning in fact lead to people being better trained and well marshalled and, in fact, better prepared to deal with Covid and also to the existence of improved trade, medicine and supply links?
The pandemic struck the United Kingdom just as it was leaving the European Union. That departure required an enormous amount of planning and preparation, particularly to address what were likely to be the severe consequences of a no-deal exit on food and medicine supplies, travel and transport, business borders and so on.
It is clear that such planning, from 2018 onwards, crowded out and prevented some or perhaps a majority of the improvements that central government itself understood were required to be made to resilience planning and preparedness.
Did the attention therefore paid to the risks of a no-deal exit - Operation Yellowhammer as it was known - drain the resources and capacity that should have been continuing the fight against the next pandemic, that should have been utilised in preparing the United Kingdom for civil emergency?
Or did all that generic and operational planning in fact lead to people being better trained and well marshalled and, in fact, better prepared to deal with Covid and also to the existence of improved trade, medicine and supply links?
Addressing Heather Hallett, the inquiry chair, Keith said:
My lady, on the evidence so far, but it will be a matter for you, we very much fear that it was the former.
He ends his opening statement by saying the inquiry should also consider whether planning for pandemic considered health inequalities, and how some groups would be more vulnerable.
Turning away from the Covid inquiry, in the Commons Pat McFadden, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, has just asked an urgent question about "developments in the mortgage market in recent days".
As Graeme Wearden writes on his business live blog, the government's short-term borrowing costs now higher than they were during Liz Truss's brief premiership, when her mini-budget spooked the markets.
Related: UK short-term borrowing costs surge above Truss-era highs as more UK interest rate rises loom - business live
Graeme says:
These two-year gilts are used to price fixed-term mortgages, and the recent increase in yields has already been forcing lenders to re-price deals, or pull them off the markets. There could be more pain ahead too, as the money markets expect Bank of England base rate to hit 5.5% by the end of this year, up from 4.5% today.
These two-year gilts are used to price fixed-term mortgages, and the recent increase in yields has already been forcing lenders to re-price deals, or pull them off the markets.
There could be more pain ahead too, as the money markets expect Bank of England base rate to hit 5.5% by the end of this year, up from 4.5% today.
Andrew Griffith, a Treasury minister, is replying. He said the UK was "not an outlier in this" and that central banks around the world were putting up interest rates.
We are not an outlier in this, as opposition members will know. Central banks around the world are raising interest rates to combat high inflation driven by the pandemic and Putin's war.
We are not an outlier in this, as opposition members will know.
Central banks around the world are raising interest rates to combat high inflation driven by the pandemic and Putin's war.
But he knew mortgage rates were a concern, he said
He said, if customers fell into difficulties, lending rules required lenders to treat them fairly. Repossession was a matter of last resort, he said.
He claimed the government was taking action to halve inflation. But Labour's £28bn borrowing plan would put interest rates up, he claimed.
MPs on the Commons education committee have launched a new inquiry into England's beleaguered schools inspectorate, Ofsted, looking at the impact of inspections on teachers and school leaders and whether the current ratings system is actually helping schools improve.
It follows the death of headteacher Ruth Perry, whose family say she killed herself earlier this year after her primary school was downgraded from "outstanding" to "inadequate", prompting a national outcry. Yesterday Ofsted announced a number of reforms to try to ease the burden on headteachers, which Perry's family and the education sector promptly concluded were nowhere near enough.
The cross-party committee will examine the current inspection framework, which was first introduced in 2019, and its impact on school standards. MPs will also consider the controversial single-word ratings system used to assess a school, as well as the current complaints procedure available to schools, to see how they might be improved.
Robin Walker, the Conservative chair of the committee, said:
Despite a growing political consensus that it does have an important part to play, this year has seen a notable groundswell of criticism towards Ofsted, which appears to have stemmed from a feeling that inspections place a high burden on school staff, and a view that one-word ratings do not always fully capture the quality of teaching and care that a school provides to children from a range of backgrounds. Ofsted plays a particularly vital role when it comes to safeguarding but ensuring that inspections are proportionate, timely and reasonable is essential to build trust, especially after the tragic passing of headteacher Ruth Perry. Some have argued that Ofsted's role should be expanded to provide more support to schools that need to improve, amid concerns around the impact that receiving a negative rating can have on a school's morale and reputation. It is vital that Ofsted is clear in its role as an independent inspectorate and that it can respond to serious concerns properly when they are raised, which is why we will also want to look carefully at its complaints process.
Despite a growing political consensus that it does have an important part to play, this year has seen a notable groundswell of criticism towards Ofsted, which appears to have stemmed from a feeling that inspections place a high burden on school staff, and a view that one-word ratings do not always fully capture the quality of teaching and care that a school provides to children from a range of backgrounds.
Ofsted plays a particularly vital role when it comes to safeguarding but ensuring that inspections are proportionate, timely and reasonable is essential to build trust, especially after the tragic passing of headteacher Ruth Perry.
Some have argued that Ofsted's role should be expanded to provide more support to schools that need to improve, amid concerns around the impact that receiving a negative rating can have on a school's morale and reputation. It is vital that Ofsted is clear in its role as an independent inspectorate and that it can respond to serious concerns properly when they are raised, which is why we will also want to look carefully at its complaints process.
Rami Ranger, a prominent Conservative peer and donor, bullied and harassed a female journalist after she publicly criticised him and an organisation he runs, a Lords committee has ruled. Kiran Stacey has the story here.
Related: Tory peer 'undermined and humiliated' journalist, finds Lords commissioner
Pat McFadden, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, asked the urgent question on UK mortgage costs. Replying to Andrew Griffith, he said the average price of a mortgage was going up by £2,300 this year. He went on:
All of this pressure was multiplied by the irresponsible decision of the Conservative government to last year use the country for a giant economic experiment which put booster rockets under mortgage rates while they enacted their teenage right-wing pamphlet fantasies, using the country like lab rats. Homeowners and renters were left to pay the price.
All of this pressure was multiplied by the irresponsible decision of the Conservative government to last year use the country for a giant economic experiment which put booster rockets under mortgage rates while they enacted their teenage right-wing pamphlet fantasies, using the country like lab rats.
Homeowners and renters were left to pay the price.
The Tories were fighting "like rats in a sack", he said. He said they were not in a position to address the problem, and should make way for Labour.
In his reply, Griffith repeated his argument about this being an international problem. In the US mortgage rates were also going up, he said.
Weatherby says some politicians will argue that austerity put the UK in a good position to deal with the pandemic.
But experts will point to its impact on public health, and local authority resilience, he says.
Weatherby says the 2011 pandemic flu preparedness plan was the closest thing the government had to a pandemic plan. But it was not adequate, he suggests.
Was that fit for purpose for a non-flu pandemic in 2020? Why wasn't there a whole-system plan? Many civil emergencies are local and require a local response backed up by central government support, where necessary. Wasn't it obvious that civil emergencies, including pandemics, are by very nature national whole-system emergencies and require national whole-system planning as a result? Options for border controls and screening, travel restrictions and quarantine, maintaining food supplies and public security, enforcing emergency restrictions on movement and assembly, maintaining education and social services systems and protecting the economic well-being of the country and jobs are all matters way beyond the remit of the Department of Health and Social Care.
Was that fit for purpose for a non-flu pandemic in 2020? Why wasn't there a whole-system plan?
Many civil emergencies are local and require a local response backed up by central government support, where necessary.
Wasn't it obvious that civil emergencies, including pandemics, are by very nature national whole-system emergencies and require national whole-system planning as a result?
Options for border controls and screening, travel restrictions and quarantine, maintaining food supplies and public security, enforcing emergency restrictions on movement and assembly, maintaining education and social services systems and protecting the economic well-being of the country and jobs are all matters way beyond the remit of the Department of Health and Social Care.
Keith is now setting out a chronology of events at the outbreak of the pandemic.
He says that this module will focus on preparedness. And he goes on:
Even at this stage, before hearing the evidence, it is apparent that we might not have been very well prepared at all.
UPDATE: Keith said:
No amount of foresight or planning can guarantee that a country will not make mistakes when a disease strikes, but that does not mean that we should not strive to be as ready as we sensibly can be. No country can be perfectly prepared, but it can certainly be underprepared.
No amount of foresight or planning can guarantee that a country will not make mistakes when a disease strikes, but that does not mean that we should not strive to be as ready as we sensibly can be.
No country can be perfectly prepared, but it can certainly be underprepared.
Keith says the government prepared for a flu pandemic.
You will hear evidence that, for many years, an influenza pandemic was assessed as being one of the most likely risks to the United Kingdom. But what about other risks that, whilst they might be less likely, could be just as, if not more, deadly? Did planning sufficiently address the risk not only of the known but the unknown? A new pathogen, a new disease, a disease X as it's known, with pandemic potential? Did planners pay sufficient focus on potential impact as opposed to likelihood? With Covid, the evidence will demonstrate that the government thought that the greater risk was an influenza pandemic and therefore devoted more time and resources to that possibility. In the event, we were hit of course by a coronavirus - that might suggest a lack of flexibility or proper foresight. Or perhaps the policies, plans and structures were so flexible and broad . that this prevented us from focusing enough upon those particular risks which, whilst being perhaps less likely, could cause us more harm?
You will hear evidence that, for many years, an influenza pandemic was assessed as being one of the most likely risks to the United Kingdom. But what about other risks that, whilst they might be less likely, could be just as, if not more, deadly?
Did planning sufficiently address the risk not only of the known but the unknown? A new pathogen, a new disease, a disease X as it's known, with pandemic potential?
Did planners pay sufficient focus on potential impact as opposed to likelihood?
With Covid, the evidence will demonstrate that the government thought that the greater risk was an influenza pandemic and therefore devoted more time and resources to that possibility.
In the event, we were hit of course by a coronavirus - that might suggest a lack of flexibility or proper foresight.
Or perhaps the policies, plans and structures were so flexible and broad . that this prevented us from focusing enough upon those particular risks which, whilst being perhaps less likely, could cause us more harm?
The inquiry will have to consider whether planning became "self-validating or complacent", he says.
He says an influenza pandemic might have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. But, because that was risk, did it mean people did not consider other threats?
And he says the government had antiviral medicines stocked up for a flu pandemic. But did this mean that, while the government was thinking of dealing with the consequences of a pandemic, it was not thinking about how it could avoid a different sort of pandemic in the first place?
To what extent did United Kingdom government and devolved administrations have a strategy for preventing a pandemic from having disastrous effects, as opposed to dealing with the disastrous effects of the pandemic and the reasonable worst case scenario?
He repeats the point about testing not being such a requirement with flu (see 10.48am), implying that the UK should have had more testing capacity for a virus like Covid.
Keith says the UK had not prepared for a non-flu pandemic.
That was relevant to testing capacity, he says. With flu, testing is less necessary, he suggests, because with flu you are more likely to show symptoms.
You know you have a bug, you go home possibly to bed and you try not to pass it on and tests aren't needed.
Pete Weatherby KC, counsel for the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group, is making his opening statement now.
He says that when David Cameron was PM in 2015, he gave a speech to the G7 saying the world had to be better prepared for the threat posed by a pandemic.
He says families of those who died want to know whether this advice was actually followed, and whether everything possible was done to prepare the UK for the pandemic.
He asks if planning focused on the human impact of a potential pandemic.
And he says the inquiry needs to focus on structural discrimination and health inequalities. He says a disproportionate number of CBFFJ families are from black and brown communities.
Keith says, in Northern Ireland, power sharing was suspended between January 2017 and January 2020. Northern Ireland was managed by civil servants, he says.
He says the inquiry will consider "to what extent that lack of ministerial input affected the civil emergency arrangements, and in particular the inability, because of the collapse of the power sharing agreement, to make any significant improvements to this structure during that interregnum".
After a short break, Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, is continuing his opening statement.
He says "very little thought" was given ahead of Covid as to whether a lockdown might be needed if a pandemic struck the UK, and how it might be implemented.
Extraordinary though it may seem, given that it's a word that's forever seared in the nation's consciousness, there was very little debate pre-pandemic of whether a lockdown might prove to be necessary in the event of a runaway virus, let alone how a lockdown could be avoided. Very little thought was given to how, if it proved to be necessary, how something as complex, difficult and damaging as a national lockdown could be put in place at all. Equally, there appears to have been a failure to think through the potentially massive impact on education and on the economy in trying to control a runaway virus in this way.
Extraordinary though it may seem, given that it's a word that's forever seared in the nation's consciousness, there was very little debate pre-pandemic of whether a lockdown might prove to be necessary in the event of a runaway virus, let alone how a lockdown could be avoided.
Very little thought was given to how, if it proved to be necessary, how something as complex, difficult and damaging as a national lockdown could be put in place at all.
Equally, there appears to have been a failure to think through the potentially massive impact on education and on the economy in trying to control a runaway virus in this way.
He again suggests '"complacency" was a factor.
Was there an element of complacency based on our recent experiences, including the ranking in the Global Health Security Index? Or our response to swine flu in 2009 and the UK's undoubted successes in ensuring Sars and Mers did not spread? Did our experience of the 2009 swine flu lead to concerns about overreacting?
Was there an element of complacency based on our recent experiences, including the ranking in the Global Health Security Index? Or our response to swine flu in 2009 and the UK's undoubted successes in ensuring Sars and Mers did not spread?
Did our experience of the 2009 swine flu lead to concerns about overreacting?
He asks whether an agency should have had full control over emergency planning. He goes on:
Perhaps there should be a central leadership position accountable to parliament, with responsibility for whole system preparedness, resilience and response.
Keith is again referring to the emergency planning flowchart cited earlier. (See 11.13am.)
It shows that local resilience forums were often in the lead. But was that the right approach, he asks.
He also points out that there are bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland duplicating what UK bodies are doing.
At the Covid inquiry Hugo Keith KC, counsel to the inquiry, is now talking specifically about the government's preparedness. He says:
It is obvious that the degree to which Covid-19 could be prevented from laying waste to society was a matter within the control of government. And the systems for the EPR [emergency preparedness and response] existed . Systems may not be able to stop a pandemic in its tracks, but they ought to be able to put in place measures of understanding of virus, understanding and forecasting how it might develop, tracking it, limiting transmission and coping with the consequences of large-scale transmission.
Keith then shows a diagram showing how the system was supposed to work. This is from the Times' Tom Whipple.
Keith is now talking about the impact of lockdown.
Almost every area of public life across all four nations, including education, work, travel, the majority of public services and family life, were adversely affected. The hospitality, retail, travel and tourism, arts and culture, and the sport and leisure sectors effectively ceased. Even places of worship closed. For very many, what they had to deal with when far beyond the curtailment of their normal lives and involve bereavement, serious illness, deprivation, mental illness, exposure to violence at home, terrible financial loss, loneliness, and many other forms of suffering.
Almost every area of public life across all four nations, including education, work, travel, the majority of public services and family life, were adversely affected.
The hospitality, retail, travel and tourism, arts and culture, and the sport and leisure sectors effectively ceased. Even places of worship closed.
For very many, what they had to deal with when far beyond the curtailment of their normal lives and involve bereavement, serious illness, deprivation, mental illness, exposure to violence at home, terrible financial loss, loneliness, and many other forms of suffering.
Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, is now making his opening statement.
He says we may never know where the Sars-CoV-2 virus, that led to the pandemic, originated. And we may never know who the first person was to be affected.
No inquiry could look into all aspects of the pandemic, he says.
But this inquiry will focus on those areas of the pandemic that caused "the greatest public concern" in the UK, and where there is a need to make urgent reccommentations.
The deputy leader of the SNP, Keith Brown, has insisted that Humza Yousaf is "sticking to principles of natural justice" as he resists demands to suspend his predecessor Nicola Sturgeon.
Yousaf has refused to bow to calls from opposition and a handful of SNP politicians to remove the whip from Sturgeon or suspend her membership following her arrest on Sunday as party of the ongoing investigation into the party's finances.
Brown told BBC Radio Scotland:
Nicola Sturgeon has not been charged, she has not been accused of anything, the arrest I appreciate is a dramatic thing to have happened and its perhaps not well understood that arrest is to ensure the interview and information gathering is put on to a formal footing.
Asked about instances within the SNP of Sturgeon suspending Margaret Ferrier, Michelle Thomson and others because of their involvement with police investigations, Brown said "there are different circumstances in each of these cases".
Brown said it was "fairly straightforward" that Yousaf had said he was not taking steps to suspend Sturgeon. Asked if there needed to be a more transparent process rather than simply having the first minister making the decision, Brown said Yousaf had taken early action to review governance and transparency in the SNP.
Brown said he had not spoken to Sturgeon in the last few days but that she had made a "very strong defence of her position" in the statement she posted immediately following her release that protested her innocence.
Heather Hallett, the inquiry chair, asks attendants to tell people who left the room because they were going to find the video too upsetting that they can now return.
She says the film was distressing for everyone, but would have been particularly distressing for relatives.
The video ends with a woman saying that, in order to move on, relatives have to know lessons will be learned from the inquiry.
A woman says it "really hurts" not being able to give someone a proper funeral, and make their "final journey lovely". She is almost in tears.
Another woman says she still suffers from anxiety, and still wears her mask wherever she goes.
And another woman says, in Caribbean culture, hundreds of people attend a funeral. In her case, only 20 people were allowed. And the body was sealed in a bag. The family were not even allowed to break the lock on it.
A man recalls calling 999 when he was really ill. He woke up again in hospital. When he did wake up, he learned his wife had died. They had been married for 48 years.
A woman recalls her father's funeral. There were just 15 people there. She did not hug anyone, from when she learned her father was dying until after the funeral. It was a very lonely time. Grief was compounded by loneliness, she says.
A woman from Northern Ireland says in Northern Ireland wakes are important part of the grieving process. She says she cannot go to the cemetery now, because it reminds her of the workers in white suits and masks at the funeral, telling them their time was up. Her mother did not get a celebration of her life, she says. She says she feels that she failed her as a result.
A woman recalls taking her mother to hospital. They "waited and waited and waited". Then a doctor called, who just announced that her mother had passed away. She was expecting to go and see her again, but she was told she had died.
The video features multiple clips from participants. The woman who was featured earlier, talking about her father and sisted dying within five days of each other, is talking about the moment her sister died.
A woman, Jane, recalls her father being taken to hospital. She accompanied him, and urged her dad "to be the strongest you've every been".
Another woman recalls being so ill she was "spitting blood". She went to hospital, and was taken to ICU where she was intubated. She woke up six weeks later. On three occasions she was so unwell they stopped treatment. But slowly and steadily she recovered.
Hallett says that she hopes that the inquiry's recommendations will over time "save lives and reduce suffering in the future".
She also confirms that she intends to publish reports as she goes along. She says:
My plan, as people now know, is to publish reports as we go along. So that when the hearings for this module finish, work will begin on preparing the report for this module. When that report is ready, it will be published. In the meantime, the other module teams and I will be working on the next modules.
The video is being shown now. It features interviews with members of the public recalling their experience of the pandemic. One woman recalls, at the start of the pandemic, discussing with her boss how they would know people who would die as the pandemic developed. But she never realised it would be "my dad and my sister five days apart", she says, holding back tears.
Heather Hallett, the inquiry chair, is opening the hearing. There is a live feed at the top of the blog.
She starts by referencing the vigil by relatives of people who have been outside the inquiry building. Their grief was obvious, she says. She says on behalf of those people she intends to answer three questions.
Was the UK properly prepared for a pandemic? Was the response to it appropriate? And can we learn lessons for the future?
Was the UK properly prepared for a pandemic?
Was the response to it appropriate?
And can we learn lessons for the future?
She says an "extraordinary amount of work" has already been done by the inquiry team.
Keir Starmer is giving a speech to the London Tech Week conference this morning. According to extracts released in advance, he will argue that artificial intelligence will pose challenges that will require "Labour values" from government if it is going to ensure that everyone benefits. He will say:
Our country is facing a choice about who benefits from the huge disruption that tech will bring. Will it be those who already hold wealth and power, or will it be the starter firms trying to break in and disrupt the industry, the patients trying to book at appointment with their GP, the worker using technology to enhance and improve their role . The question facing our country is who will benefit from this disruption? Will it leave some behind, as happened with de-industrialisation across vast swathes of our country? Or can it help build a society where everyone is included, and inequalities are narrowed not widened? This moment calls for Labour values, of working in partnership with business, driving technology to the public good, and ensuring people and places aren't left behind. Labour would take a whole-economy approach, recognising that tech is not just a sector, but every job and every business must become digital if we are to address the UK's productivity problem. Diffusing the latest technology across our economy and public services will be as important as supporting the latest unicorns.
Our country is facing a choice about who benefits from the huge disruption that tech will bring. Will it be those who already hold wealth and power, or will it be the starter firms trying to break in and disrupt the industry, the patients trying to book at appointment with their GP, the worker using technology to enhance and improve their role .
The question facing our country is who will benefit from this disruption? Will it leave some behind, as happened with de-industrialisation across vast swathes of our country? Or can it help build a society where everyone is included, and inequalities are narrowed not widened?
This moment calls for Labour values, of working in partnership with business, driving technology to the public good, and ensuring people and places aren't left behind. Labour would take a whole-economy approach, recognising that tech is not just a sector, but every job and every business must become digital if we are to address the UK's productivity problem. Diffusing the latest technology across our economy and public services will be as important as supporting the latest unicorns.
Three years of public hearings by the Covid inquiry is "far too long" according to a Tory peer who served as a health minister over the period examined and who warned this morning that Britain had now "gone backwards" in terms of planning for a future pandemic.
Lord Bethell told Sky News:
The desire to answer the concerns of families is entirely right but there are practical matters for what should be done in preparing this country for another pandemic that is likely some time in the future. "That work should be done today and it's taking far too long to learn the practical lessons of the mistakes we made the first time round.
The desire to answer the concerns of families is entirely right but there are practical matters for what should be done in preparing this country for another pandemic that is likely some time in the future.
"That work should be done today and it's taking far too long to learn the practical lessons of the mistakes we made the first time round.
The peer was speaking ahead of the beginning this morning of public hearings by the UK's Covid Inquiry, which is initially looking at pandemic preparedness.
But while the inquiry is not due to conclude hearings until 2026, new mistakes had already been made, he said, pointing to the dismantlement of testing facilities while surveillance was "not good enough". He went on:
We have gone backwards rather than forwards in terms of planning for any future pandemic. We do not have a good pandemic plan in place.
Q: Do you use ChatGPT and what do you ask it?
Starmer says he has a 14-year-old son who gives him a "masterclass" on this every day. He does not see it as outlandish. He thinks of its as something that will be part of his life. What it can do is incredible.
But Starmer also says he sees the potential impact of AI in his work all the time. For example, he recently talked about how it can be used to improve scanning for cancer, he says.
Keir Starmer is speaking at London Tech Week now. There is a live feed here.
He says this time last year Boris Johnson was PM. Now we are on our third PM, and our fourth chancellor since then, he says. And we have three byelections just caused by political fallout. Essentially they have been caused by "political tantrums", he says. He says that is "unprecedented".
There is a price, he says. People want government to focus on the cost of living, not issues like this.
And he says disruption likes this affects the reputation of the UK. And it deters investors.
Q: What effect will the implosion of the SNP have?
Starmer says the implosion of the SNP has been profound. It has had two effects.
First, it has led to the SNP's record in government being examined. And it is not very good, he says.
And he says people are open to listening to Labour's case as to what it could do for Scotland.
Good morning. Today marks the start of an event that will be in the news, and will dominate public policy thinking, for years. The Covid inquiry has been up and running since last year. But until now all the public hearings have been on procedural matters. This morning marks the start of the evidence-gathering stage of hearings and, after an opening statement this morning from Heather Hallett, the chair, and statements from counsel for the core participants, the first witnesses will be up tomorrow. These hearings focus on "resilience and preparedness" and the really interesting hearings will start next week, when David Cameron, George Osborne and Jeremy Hunt are expected to appear.
Yesterday Boris Johnson formally resigned as an MP, ending, or reducing, his exposure to parliamentary scrutiny. But the inquiry may expose him to a more intense level of scrutiny than he has faced before.
Public inquiries of this kind always take years, and so Johnson and other ministers may be assuming that judgment day will be some way off. But, as Paul Waugh pointed out in an i column recently, that would be to misunderstand how this inquiry is operating. He explained:
Crucially, some critics have missed the simple fact that the modular nature of this inquiry means that Hallett and her team will be making regular reports after each (a few months apart), complete with recommendations for action as well as key findings. Unlike the Chilcot inquiry into Iraq, there won't be years of evidence and then "one big" report in 2026.
Here is Robert Booth's guide to how the inquiry will operate.
Related: What will the Covid inquiry look at - and when will we get answers?
And here is Nimo Omer's guide to some of the wider issues at stake.
Related: Tuesday briefing: A years-long inquiry into the Covid pandemic starts today - what will it find?
The inquiry proceedings get going as the Johnson "clown show" (as Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar calls it) continues to preoccupy the Conservative party - and most of the rest of Westminster too. I'll be covering that as well.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Rishi Sunak chairs cabinet.
9.30am: Keir Starmer gives a speech at London Tech Week.
10am: Heather Hallett, chair of the Covid inquiry, opens the evidence-taking stage of its work with a statement. Then there will be opening statements from counsel. The first witnesses will appear tomorrow.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
Afternoon: Peers will debate the Public Order Act 1986 (serious disruption to the life of the community) regulations 2023, a new law that that makes it easier for the police to stop peaceful protests, and a motion tabled by the Green peer Jenny Jones to block the regulations.
If you want to contact me, do try the "send us a message" feature. You'll see it just below the byline - on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a PC or a laptop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos - no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting too. I can't promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.