owning Street has rejected claims of a “cover-up” because the Covid-19 inquiry prolonged the deadline for the Government handy over Boris Johnson’s unredacted WhatsApp messages and notebooks.

As Tuesday’s deadline approached, the Cabinet Office was given till 4pm on Thursday to show over the proof after officers claimed they don't possess all of the paperwork demanded.

The former prime minister insisted he has “no objection” to handing over the proof as his successor Rishi Sunak insisted the Government was appearing “in a spirit of transparency and candour”.

But inquiry chair Lady Hallett demanded a witness assertion from a senior civil servant accompanied by an announcement of reality confirming the paperwork are usually not held if the Cabinet Office fails to provide them by the brand new deadline.

Former head of the Civil Service Lord Kerslake instructed BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “There’s some cover-up going on here to save embarrassment of ministers, but there’s also the Cabinet Office fighting for a principle of confidentiality.

Read More

“I have to say I think they’re misguided on this situation. I actually think it would set a helpful precedent if Lady Hallett prevailed in this fight about the information.”

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman flatly denied the allegation of a cover-up, saying: “No. We want to learn the lessons about the actions of the state during the pandemic, we want that to be done rigorously and candidly.”

He mentioned there is no such thing as a requirement to “permanently store or record every WhatsApp”, with messages associated to decision-making as a substitute copied over to the official report.

But the spokesman mentioned it's “down to individuals to decide what personal information they are able to hand over”.

I've to say I believe they’re misguided on this case. I truly suppose it might set a useful precedent if Lady Hallett prevailed on this battle in regards to the info

Lady Hallett rejected a request to increase the request for compliance together with her calls for for disclosure till Monday, however agreed to the shorter extension.

“Second, the inquiry was informed that the Cabinet Office does not have in its possession either Mr Johnson’s WhatsApp messages or Mr Johnson’s notebooks, as sought in the original section 21 Notice,” a discover from the inquiry added.

Mr Johnson’s workplace mentioned he “has no objection to disclosing material to the inquiry”.

“He has done so and will continue to do so,” the previous prime minister’s spokesman mentioned.

“The decision to challenge the inquiry’s position on redactions is for the Cabinet Office.”

Mr Johnson’s workforce says the notebooks and WhatsApp messages have been handed to the Cabinet Office authorized workforce, however he has since parted methods together with his government-appointed attorneys.

The former prime minister says he has not had a request from the Cabinet Office since telling officers in a letter on Friday any request for materials have to be in writing to him.

According to his workforce, his message to the division mentioned: “If the Cabinet Office requires any action to be taken regarding this or any other material you must tell me in writing.

“To date, our office is not aware of having received any instructions or requests from the Cabinet Office regarding this material.”

Mr Sunak and Mr Johnson are usually not scheduled to satisfy this week regardless of options they might maintain clear-the-air talks amid a row over the Covid-19 inquiry.

It is known that there had been preliminary discussions about holding a phone name however this isn't scheduled to go forward because it stands.

Whitehall officers are involved about setting a precedent by handing over all of the requested paperwork in unredacted kind, relatively than deciding what materials is related and needs to be submitted to the inquiry.

Speaking to broadcasters throughout a go to to Kent, Mr Sunak mentioned the Government was appearing “in a spirit of transparency and candour”.

“The Government has co-operated with the inquiry; tens of thousands of documents have been handed over.

“With regard to the specific question at the moment, the Government is carefully considering its position but it is confident in the approach that it’s taking.”

The row was sparked by a authorized request despatched by the inquiry on April 28 for a lot of supplies, together with unredacted WhatsApp messages and diaries belonging to Mr Johnson, from January 2020 to February 2022.

In May, the Cabinet Office resisted the request, which was made beneath part 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005 and which additionally applies to messages from Mr Johnson’s former adviser Henry Cook.

In a ruling final week, Lady Hallett rejected the argument that the inquiry’s request was illegal and mentioned the Cabinet Office had “misunderstood the breadth of the investigation”.

Refusing to adjust to the request would result in a authorized conflict with the official inquiry.

The demand covers textual content conversations between Mr Johnson and a bunch of presidency figures, civil servants and officers.

The record consists of England’s chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty, in addition to then-chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance.

Messages with then-foreign secretary Liz Truss and then-health secretary Matt Hancock are additionally requested, in addition to with former high aide Dominic Cummings and then-chancellor Mr Sunak.

The inquiry had additionally requested for “copies of the 24 notebooks containing contemporaneous notes made by the former prime minister” in “clean unredacted form, save only for any redactions applied for reasons of national security sensitivity”.

In the notice granting the extension, the inquiry mentioned if the WhatsApp messages and notebooks can't be produced, the Cabinet Office might want to present witness statements from senior officers setting out what efforts have been made to seek out them, together with contacts with Mr Johnson.

Officials may also have to elucidate whether or not the WhatsApp messages are on Mr Johnson’s private cellphone or an official machine.

The Cabinet Office should additionally clarify whether or not it had both the messages or the previous prime minister’s notebooks beneath its management at any time since February 3 and, in that case, what occurred to them.