Rishi Sunak got into a heated debate with the Covid inquiry counsel over hisEat Out To Help Out scheme, which is claimed to have resulted in an increase in both cases and deaths.
Lead counsel Hugo Keith KC put to the prime minister that the government’s top scientific advisers have said unanimously they would have urged against it if they had been consulted.
That group includes Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Professor Sir Patrick Vallance and Jonathan Van-Tam.
But the PM quipped that there may have been ‘undue focus’ on it throughout the inquiry, quoting previous comments by Matt Hancock.
Earlier, he jumped into defence, saying the scheme was just a ‘micro policy’ within the overall reopening plan of the country.
At the beginning of the inquiry, he jumped at the first opportunity to throw his former boss, Boris Johnson, under the bus, describing him as the ‘ultimate, sole decision maker’ during the pandemic.
The PM, who was a chancellor at the time, is facing allegations his Eat Out to Help Out scheme fuelled the spread of coronavirus, resulting in a spike in both cases and deaths.
Some boos were heard as the Tory politician – who is also facing a rebellion over his controversial Rwanda migrant bill – got out of his car and walked up the steps into Dorland House.
One person was heard shouting, ‘Lives are more important than money’, but the PM did not seem to blink an eye.
Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, kicked off the evidence with ‘some forensic building blocks’, putting forward his previous statements that he does not have WhatsApp texts from the period.
Sunak, who described himself as ‘not a prolific WhatsApp user’, repeated: ‘I have changed my phone multiple times over the past few years.’
Counsel then turned to a ‘clash’ between public health and economic and fiscal issues throughout the pandemic.
Sunak was asked if he ‘promoted a particular position’ related to restrictions with Johnson.
‘It would depend on the decision confronting the PM,’ he replied, adding that he would provide economic advice and analysis.
Pressed again on who made all the final decisions, he said: ‘It’s absolutely right to say that the prime minister was the ultimate, sole decision maker.’
Asked whether he had opportunities to make his views on Covid restrictions plain to the then-prime minister, Sunak told the inquiry: ‘As a general rule, I always felt that I could.
‘I mean, I saw the prime minister probably more than I saw my own wife for this period of time.
‘We were working very closely together as I was with my other Cabinet colleagues, and as a general rule I was able to participate in everything that I felt I needed to in order to get the evidence, analysis, to him in a way that he could use it to make decisions.’
Eat Out to Help Out formed part of his summer economic update on July 8, 2020, but it is claimed that the consequences vastly outstripped its short-term economic benefits.
It provided 50% off the cost of food and/or non-alcoholic drinks in a bid to boost the struggling hospitality sector.
Sunak will also be probed on allegations that scientists were not consulted before it was launched.
Former deputy chief medical officer Professor Sir Jonathan Van-Tam stressed that Eat Out to Help Out ‘didn’t feel sensible’ because it was encouraging exactly what officials had been trying to stop in previous months.
Giving evidence, Sir Patrick Vallance, who was chief scientific adviser, said the plan was ‘highly likely’ to have fuelled deaths.
He added that he and Sir Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, could not recall being consulted in advance about it in advance.
More Trending
One of Sir Patrick’s diary entries also recorded Dominic Cummings, who was Boris Johnson’s chief adviser in Downing Street at the time, saying Mr Sunak ‘thinks just let people die and that’s OK’.
The PM is the final witness to take the stand in the current phase of the inquiry – following on from Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock.
Away from Dorland House, the European Research Group (ERG) has just published its opinion on the Rwanda bill.
The ERG said itprovides a ‘partial and incomplete solution to the problem of legal challenges in the UK courts’.
‘We do not believe that it goes far enough to deliver the policy as intended,’ the summary adds.
‘Resolving, comprehensively, the issues raised by this analysis would require very significant amendments, some of which would potentially be outside the current title’s scope, and the final bill would look very different.’
The ERG will meet again on Monday to decide how to vote on the bill.
Got a story? Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk. Or you can submit your videos and pictures here.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
Follow Metro.co.uk on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news updates. You can now also get Metro.co.uk articles sent straight to your device. Sign up for our daily push alerts here.
MORE: Rishi’s darkest day as he faces Covid grilling and ‘plot to replace him with Boris and Farage’
MORE: Does Boris Johnson deserve the blame for covid deaths?
MORE: Boris Johnson told to stop wearing Grimsby Town hat as it ‘brings town into disrepute’
