Baroness Heather Hallett, the chair of the inquiry, described the response to the pandemic as "too little, too late". Tens of thousands of lives could have been saved during the first wave of COVID-19 had a mandatory lockdown been introduced a week earlier, the inquiry also found. Noting how a "lack of urgency" made a mandatory lockdown "inevitable", the report references modelling data to claim there could have been 23,000 fewer deaths during the first wave in England had it been introduced a week earlier. The UK government first introduced advisory restrictions on 16 March 2020, including self-isolation, household quarantine and social distancing. Had these measures been introduced sooner, the report states, the mandatory lockdown which followed from 23 March might not have been necessary at all. COVID-19 first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan at the end of 2019, and as it developed into a worldwide pandemic, the UK went in and out of unprecedented lockdown measures for two years starting from March 2020. Lady Hallett admitted in her summary that politicians in the government and devolved administrations were forced to make decisions where "there was often no right answer or good outcome". "Nonetheless," she said, "I can summarise my findings of the response as 'too little, too late'". 'Toxic culture' at the heart of UK government The report said there was "a toxic and chaotic culture" at the heart of the UK government during the pandemic. The inquiry heard evidence about the "destabilising behaviour of a number of individuals" - including former No 10 adviser Dominic Cummings. It said that by failing to tackle this chaotic culture - "and, at times, actively encouraging it" - former PM Boris Johnson "reinforced a culture in which the loudest voices prevailed and the views of other colleagues, particularly women, often went ignored, to the detriment of good decision-making". 'Misleading assurances' The inquiry found all four governments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland failed to understand the urgency of response the pandemic demanded in the early part of 2020. The report reads: "This was compounded, in part, by misleading assurances from the Department of Health and Social Care and the widely held view that the UK was well prepared for a pandemic." The report notes how the UK government took a "high risk" when it significantly eased restrictions in England in July 2020 - "despite scientific advisers' concerns about the public health risks of doing so". Lady Hallett has made 19 key recommendations which, if followed, she believes will better protect the UK in any future pandemic and improve decision-making in a crisis. Repeated failings 'inexcusable' In a statement following the publication of Thursday's report, Lady Hallett said there was a "serious failure" by all four governments to appreciate the level of "risk and calamity" facing the UK. She said: "The tempo of the response should have been increased. It was not. February 2020 was a lost month." Read more:A timeline of the UK's response to the pandemic Lady Hallett said the inquiry does not advocate for national lockdowns, which she said should have been avoided if at all possible. She said: "But to avoid them, governments must take timely and decisive action to control a spreading virus. The four governments of the UK did not." Lady Hallett said none of the governments were adequately prepared for the challenges and risks that a lockdown presented, and that many of the same failings were repeated later in 2020, which she said was "inexcusable". She added: "Each government had ample warning that the prevalence of the virus was increasing and would continue to do so into the winter months. Yet again, there was a failure to take timely and effective action."

Political editor Beth Rigby told the Electoral Dysfunction podcast with Baroness Harriet Harman that she had heard from two sources that the prime minister would make the trip - which will be controversial - at the end of January. Politics latest: Westminster braced as COVID inquiry report She told the Labour peer: "Now, we've had this from a couple of different sources. "As I understand it, it's not been confirmed, but I guess until they get on the plane, these things are never confirmed. "But, you know, they might not really want people talking about the prime minister going to China, given the backdrop of the China spy case, and all of those allegations and all that controversy around China in the UK, the super embassy [proposal]." She added: "But Harriet, what do you think? The prime minister should be going to China, shouldn't he? Given that we economically want to grow ties with China? What do you think?" Baroness Harman replied: "I think he should, but I think there's no naivety around the government about, although there's opportunities to cooperate with China on climate change, on trade, that there's also major challenges that they've got to be wary of - so I think they'll be going, but with eyes wide open." The trip is likely to be controversial given the UK's fractious relationship with China, made worse by recent allegations of spying in parliament. Read more:MI5 is trying to send a signal to China with spying warningThree key questions about China spy case that need answering Earlier this week, MPs and peers were warned of new attempts to spy on them by China. The security service MI5 sent a warning to those working in Westminster about two recruitment headhunters to watch out for who are working for Chinese security services. It followed the collapse of a prosecution of two people suspected of spying on behalf of China. A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in the UK said: "These claims by the UK side are pure fabrication and malicious slander. We strongly condemn such despicable moves of the UK side and have lodged stern representations with them. "We urge the UK side to immediately stop this self-staged charade of false accusations and self-aggrandisement, and stop going further down the wrong path of undermining China-UK relations." Rigby said the trip would be a "massive moment", noting that the last prime minister to visit China was Theresa May in 2018. Last month Donald Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea. The US president described the talks with China's president as "amazing" and said "on the scale of one to 10, the meeting with Xi was 12". You can listen to the Electoral Dysfunction episode in full from 6am tomorrow.

Earlier this year, the government announced it would double the qualifying period for migrants hoping to be granted permanent settlement from five years to 10 years, with reductions available for those who make a "strong contribution" to British life. Politics latest: Starmer planning trip to China in the new year, Sky News understands Shabana Mahmood has announced that the two million people who arrived in the UK from 2021 - under what Labour has dubbed the "Boris wave" - will now have to wait 10 years for permanent settlement. Setting out her plans in the Commons, Ms Mahmood said settling in the UK was "not a right, but a privilege, and it must be earned". But she said that was "not the case today", with permanent settlement - also known as indefinite leave to remain - granted "almost automatically after five years in the country", granting migrants access to benefits. She explained that 1.6 million are forecast to achieve settled status between 2026 and 2030, and "that will now change". Other proposals being put forward by Ms Mahmood include: New rules that mean migrants can only become eligible for benefits and social housing if they are granted British citizenship, rather than settled status Low-paid workers, such as the 616,000 people and their dependents who came on health and social care visas between 2022 and 2024, will have to wait 15 years before they can be granted permanent settlement. Changing rules so that those reliant on benefits face a 20-year wait for settlement - quadruple the current period and the longest in Europe Giving a statement in the House of Commons, Ms Mahmood expressed fears "Greater Britain" was in danger of "giving way to Littler England" and current divisions could lead to danger for migrants and their families, including hers. She said while some would "choose to scorn this analysis", "those who look like me do not have that luxury - our lives, and those of our families, are more dangerous in a country that turns inwards". Ms Mahmood added: "So we have no choice but to ask, what is the cause of our division, and how might this country be united?" The home secretary sought to stress her changes would not apply to those who already had settled status. She said those who were applying for indefinite leave to remain must have no criminal record, speak English to A-level standards and have no debt. And she said the government was also proposing that those who speak English to a degree-level standard could qualify for a nine-year path to settlement. Those paying the higher rate of tax could qualify at five years, and those on the top rate could qualify after three, the same as those on global talent visas. Meanwhile, those who work in a public service, including doctors, teachers, and nurses, would qualify after five years, while those who volunteer could qualify at between five and seven years. Read more:Labour's immigration reforms at a glanceShabana Mahmood is the new hard woman of British politics However, Ms Mahmood did say she would consult on whether asylum seekers who claim benefits should not qualify for settlement until 15 years after their arrival. She told the Commons: "These are subject to consultation, but the government proposes that those who have received benefits for less than 12 months would not qualify for settlement until 15 years after arrival. "For those who have claimed benefits for more than 12 months, that would rise to 20 years." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "She's [Mahmood] had a busy week. I wonder if this burst of hyperactivity has anything to do with her leadership bid." He continued: "Immigration under successive governments has been far, far too high, and points to the fact 10,000 people have crossed the Channel illegally since she took office. "I am delighted to see that the home secretary...has got out the copy and paste function on her laptop and started copying and pasting Conservative policies." The latest proposals come just days after Ms Mahmood, who was previously justice secretary, announced a raft of measures designed to deter illegal immigration and small boat crossings in the Channel. On Monday, she said families with children would be removed - either voluntarily through cash incentives of up to £3,000, or by force and that refugee status would become temporary and subject to review every two and a half years, below the five years currently offered.

They tried to undermine inquiry chair Lady Hallet's attempt to understand what went wrong and how we might do better, and portray it as a lame exercise that would achieve very little. Well, we now know that Boris Johnson's "toxic and chaotic" government could well have prevented at least 23,000 deaths had they acted sooner and with greater urgency. Follow latest: All four UK governments 'failed to appreciate' scale of COVID pandemic threat The response was "too little, too late". And nobody in power truly understood the scale of the emerging threat or the urgency of the response it required. The grieving families who lost loved ones in the pandemic want answers. They want names. And they want accountability. But that is beyond the remit of this inquiry. Read more:'Toxic and chaotic culture' at centre of UK government during the pandemicA timeline of the UK's response to the pandemicEverything you need to know about the COVID inquiry The publication of the report into Module 2 of the inquiry will bring them no comfort, it may even cause them more distress. But it will bring them closer to understanding why the UK's response to this unprecedented health crisis was so poor. We can easily identify the "advisers and ministers whose alleged rule breaking caused huge distress and undermined public confidence". And we know who was in charge of the Department of Health and Social Care as it misled the public by giving the impression that the UK was well prepared for the pandemic when it clearly was not.

But unless John Healey backs his rhetoric up with a far more urgent push to rearm - and to rebuild wider national resilience - he risks his words ringing as hollow as his military. The defence secretary on Wednesday repeated government plans to increase defence spending and work with NATO allies to bolster European security. Instead of focusing purely on the threat, he also stressed how plans to buy weapons and build arms factories will create jobs and economic growth. In a sign of the government's priorities, job creation is typically the top line of any Ministry of Defence press release about its latest investment in missiles, drones and warships rather than why the equipment is vital to defend the nation. I doubt expanding employment opportunities was the motivating factor in the 1930s when the UK converted car factories into Spitfire production lines to prepare for war with Nazi Germany. Yet communicating to the public what war readiness really means must surely be just as important today. Mr Healey also chose this moment of national peril to attempt to score political points by criticising the previous Conservative government for hollowing out the armed forces - when the military was left in a similarly underfunded state during the last Labour government. A report by a group of MPs, released on the same day as Mr Healey rattled his sabre at Russia, underlined the scale of the challenge the UK faces. It accused the government of lacking a national plan to defend itself from attack. The Defence Select Committee also warned that Mr Healey, Sir Keir Starmer and the rest of the cabinet are moving at a "glacial" pace to fix the problem and are failing to launch a "national conversation on defence and security" - something the prime minister had promised last year. The report backed up the findings of a wargame podcast by Sky News and Tortoise that simulated what might happen if Russia launched waves of missile strikes against the UK. The series showed how successive defence cuts since the end of the Cold War means the army, navy and air force are woefully equipped to defend the home front. Read more:Russia accuses Britain of being 'provocative' as spy ship nears UKBriton who volunteered as spy for Russia jailed But credible national defences also require the wider country to be prepared for war. A set of plans setting out what must happen in the transition from peace to war was quietly shelved at the start of this century, so there no longer exists a rehearsed and resourced system to ensure local authorities, businesses and the wider population know what to do. Mr Healey revealed that the Russian spy ship had directed a laser light presumably to dazzle pilots of a Royal Air Force reconnaissance aircraft that was tracking it. "That Russian action is deeply dangerous," he said. "So, my message to Russia and to Putin, is this: We see you. We know what you are doing. And if Yantar travels south this week, we are ready." He did not spell out what this might mean but it could include attempts to block the Russian vessel's passage, or even fire warning shots to force it to retreat. However, any direct engagement could trigger a retaliation from Moscow. For now, the Russian ship - fitted with spying equipment to monitor critical national infrastructure such as communications cables on the seabed - has moved away from the UK coast. It was at its closest between 5 and 11 November. The military is still tracking its movements closely in case the ship returns.