more stringent circuit route was a more stringent circuit breaker or lockdown. the position had changed had it not by october? in the minutes of the 20th of october cabinet meeting the cmo was recorded as saying the country is split into three broad categories and this justifies three tiers of local alert level. find and thisjustifies three tiers of local alert level.— local alert level. and in that meetinu local alert level. and in that meeting and _ local alert level. and in that meeting and on _ local alert level. and in that meeting and on the - local alert level. and in that meeting and on the 11th - local alert level. and in that meeting and on the 11th of l local alert level. and in that - meeting and on the 11th of october he made it plain that epidemiologically there was a very high risk of the thia system would not work to bring are below one. you are aware of that? fin not work to bring are below one. you are aware of that?— are aware of that? on the 20th of october he _ are aware of that? on the 20th of october he said _ are aware of that? on the 20th of october he said justified - are aware of that? on the 20th of october he said justified the - october he said justified the governments approach of three tiers. and even after the national lockdown he said it would be entirely rational to reintroduce the tiering system. it goes to the point that the principle of a tiered system is one which had wide support amongst

scientific and health advisers. obviously there is a justification for the thia system within its own parameters but was it not apparent that it was a bit of a chance as to whether or not epidemiologically it would work. there is a system in place. in would work. there is a system in lace. . would work. there is a system in lace, . . ., , would work. there is a system in lace. . u, , ., , place. in which case i would “ust oint to place. in which case i would “ust point to the fi place. in which case i would “ust point to the remarks * place. in which case i would “ust point to the remarks of�* place. in which case i would “ust point to the remarks of the h place. in which case i would just i point to the remarks of the deputy chief medical officer on the 20th of october in the press conference where he was asked and he said this national firebreak you talk about, no i don't think it's right and i don't think it's consistent with the epidemiological picture we are saying. i think it would be very difficult to justify the chief medical... not the chief medical officer but the medical director of the nhs also made a point after that in the same press conference about the varied epidemiological impact they were seeing around the country

in hospitals so at the end of october on the date you are talking about in public the deputy chief medical officer was saying he didn't think national action would be justified given the very picture across the country. that was backed up across the country. that was backed up by across the country. that was backed up by steve palace at the same press conference. in up by steve palace at the same press conference. ., , up by steve palace at the same press conference. . , ., conference. in the cabinet and covert s meetings _ conference. in the cabinet and covert s meetings which - conference. in the cabinet and covert s meetings which you i conference. in the cabinet and - covert s meetings which you attended you were away that epidemiologically this was a bit of a chance. it was quite likely it would not work to bring r below one print policy terms it was a position open to the government to take and when you support it because you were postal lockdown. ., , support it because you were postal lockdown. . , ., ., ., lockdown. that is not a fair characterisation _ lockdown. that is not a fair characterisation of - lockdown. that is not a fair characterisation of my - lockdown. that is not a fair- characterisation of my position. i was opposed to a circuit breaker in september because i don't think it would have up achieved its objectives. i have seen in evidence people accepting it would have prevented the need for a second

lockdown. it didn't work in wales when it was tried. i was opposed to a circuit breaker. i didn't think it would work. at the end of october, we can both quote when it's back of each other and i'm looking at the cabinet minutes from the 20th of october where the chief medical officer saying it was justified. what was your position by the 30th of october in relation to the lockdown decision of the lith of november? i lockdown decision of the 4th of november?— lockdown decision of the 4th of november? i didn't oppose it at november- _ november? i didn't oppose it at november. but _ november? i didn't oppose it at november. but what _ november? i didn't oppose it at november. but what i _ november? i didn't oppose it at november. but what i can - november? i didn't oppose it at november. but what i can tell. november? i didn't oppose it at i november. but what i can tell you was it was reasonable to believe at the end of october that the regional approach may still work. obviously it turned out not to be right in the benefit of hindsight but when you have the deputy chief medical officer themselves saying at the end of october he doesn't believe national action is warranted because

it wasn't consistent with the varied regional picture we are seeing, that demonstrates to you that reasonable people believed the regional approach may still work and it was worth trying. clearly in the event it didn't but as we discussed earlier these things were finely balanced and lots of things to think about but what of the time? i think so and it was extensively debated. in terms of thinking about the decision—making process i don't think there was any failure in the process because it was extensively debated in government. [30 process because it was extensively debated in government.— process because it was extensively debated in government. do we take it from that you — debated in government. do we take it from that you had _ debated in government. do we take it from that you had every _ debated in government. do we take it from that you had every opportunity l from that you had every opportunity to dissuade the prime minister from the ultimate decision to impose the lockdown in november 2020? your voice was listened to but ultimately the prime minister decided they had to be lockdown. it the prime minister decided they had to be lockdown.— to be lockdown. it was always the case that decisions _ to be lockdown. it was always the case that decisions ultimately - to be lockdown. it was always the j case that decisions ultimately laid with the prime minister, that is the

same throughout. myjob throughout was to make him aware of the impacts of the decisions. did was to make him aware of the impacts of the decisions.— of the decisions. did you say to him, my position _ of the decisions. did you say to him, my position as _ of the decisions. did you say to him, my position as chancellor| of the decisions. did you say to i him, my position as chancellor is of the decisions. did you say to - him, my position as chancellor is a lockdown is not warranted for all the reasons this inquiry understands and for all the reasons reflected in the paperwork before you and before this inquiry, in that ultimate debate your view was i think this is the wrong decision. ila. debate your view was i think this is the wrong decision.— the wrong decision. no. as the record shows _ the wrong decision. no. as the record shows on _ the wrong decision. no. as the record shows on the _ the wrong decision. no. as the record shows on the evidence i the wrong decision. no. as the - record shows on the evidence shows the point i made to him which he did consider but ultimately disagreed with me on was to consider whether it was necessary to shut nonessential retailers part of that lockdown. the prime minister said he wanted to think about it and ended up wanted to think about it and ended up deciding it was worth shutting it down. by this point we had the evidence from sage that confirmed

the very minimal impact on r from closing nonessential retail so at this point we had that data so it was reasonable to consider whether it was necessary. the prime minister thought about it and decided to include it in the lockdown, i don't know why exactly, but the simplicity of the overall approach. that was my main specific point about that decision was purely on nonessential retail. ., , ., , retail. three final questions - lease. retail. three final questions please. firstly, _ retail. three final questions please. firstly, an - retail. three final questions i please. firstly, an attractively there is material which shows that there is material which shows that the treasury was associated with death, some officials at number ten

described the treasury as the pro—death squad. obviously an account of the fact the treasury was seen to be opposed to maximum public health interventions and was quite properly promoting the issue of the need to avoid economic damage and harm. where you away the treasury was being referred to in those terms? i was being referred to in those terms? . . �* was being referred to in those terms? ., , �* ., ., was being referred to in those terms? �* ., ., ., ~ terms? i wasn't and i do not think it's a fair characterisation - terms? i wasn't and i do not think it's a fair characterisation on - terms? i wasn't and i do not think it's a fair characterisation on the l it's a fair characterisation on the incredibly hard—working people that i was lucky to be supported by in the treasury. earlier you talk about the treasury. earlier you talk about the people at sage being motivated by doing what they thought was best in the public interest and i would say exactly the same thing about other people work with me at the treasury who worked extremely hard throughout the entire period and as you kindly alluded to are widely considered to have done things nobody thought possible and saved millions of peoples livelihoods and help the economy and helped families

get through. i am grateful to them for what they did. it is get through. i am grateful to them for what they did.— for what they did. it is obvious that many _ for what they did. it is obvious that many of _ for what they did. it is obvious that many of the _ for what they did. it is obvious that many of the very - for what they did. it is obvious that many of the very difficult | that many of the very difficult decisions which had to be taken by government were highly politicised. they are decisions which engage the public, they have given rise to an enormous amount of public anxiety as well as public heat and light and it's obvious that the government acted whenever it acted in good faith and doing the best it possibly could, that is its stated decision and there is no basis for challenging that. one particular contentious issue is the issue of free meals in holidays. you will

recall marcus rashford the footballer spearheaded a campaign, make the u—turn campaign, he campaigned for holiday food vouchers for children who are entitled to free school meals and an extract from the diary of sir patrick vallance refers to a meeting on the 13th ofjune where this issue came up 13th ofjune where this issue came up and said patrick has suggested that somebody at the meeting said good working people pay for their children to eat and don't want freeloaders and he has suggested that in the context of the chancellor of the exchequer and the chief whip. plainly, you can both have said it but i want you to please answer whether or not anybody did say those words? i did please answer whether or not anybody did say those words?— did say those words? i did not say those words _ did say those words? i did not say those words and _ did say those words? i did not say those words and i _ did say those words? i did not say those words and i don't _ did say those words? i did not say those words and i don't recollect i those words and i don't recollect anyone saying those words and my

concern throughout the pandemic was making sure we had support in place for the most vulnerable and as all the evidence now shows and as independent analysts have said, i was schemes helped the most financially vulnerable vermont. unemployment remained low, the distribution analysis published by the treasury supports it was the poorest households were protected the most by what in the government did because people people who were least well off were uppermost in our thoughts because we know it would be particularly difficult on them that is why we put a range of things in place to help them and i'm glad the evidence shows they did get the most support. evidence shows they did get the most su ort. ~ , ., ~ evidence shows they did get the most su--ort. ~ , ., ~ support. prime minister, thank you. shall we take _ support. prime minister, thank you. shall we take a _ support. prime minister, thank you. shall we take a break? _ support. prime minister, thank you. shall we take a break? we - support. prime minister, thank you. shall we take a break? we shall- shall we take a break? we shall return— shall we take a break? we shall return at— shall we take a break? we shall return at 25 past. you shall we take a break? we shall return at 25 past.— shall we take a break? we shall return at 25 past. you are watching bbc news- —

return at 25 past. you are watching bbc news- the _ return at 25 past. you are watching bbc news. the covid _ return at 25 past. you are watching bbc news. the covid inquiry - return at 25 past. you are watchingj bbc news. the covid inquiry taking return at 25 past. you are watching i bbc news. the covid inquiry taking a break until 25 past the hour. you have been listening to premise the rishi sunak giving evidence to the inquiry for most of today from 10:30am this morning. earlier he apologised to all of those who suffered as a result of the governments decision during the pandemic. he is also faced questions about the controversial eater to help out scheme aimed at helping the hospitality sector. scientific advisers have already told the inquiry they didn't know about the plan until it was announced and there were concerns it could spread there were concerns it could spread the virus. when asked about that scheme the prime minister defended it from the accusations that it was introduced without any scientific backing. eat introduced without any scientific backinu. ., ., ., , introduced without any scientific backinu. ., ., ., ., backing. eat out to help out had been designed _ backing. eat out to help out had been designed specifically - backing. eat out to help out had been designed specifically in - backing. eat out to help out had | been designed specifically in the context of the safe lifting of mpi is that had already been signed off as part of them they plan which may have reopened hospitality, in the

hospitality, that had already been part of the approved plan. eat out to help out only operated within that context and they were a significant range of other mpi is in place including social distancing, covered secure guidance, table service, contactless or drink only systems, all of which have been put in place but the overall reopening of in the hospitality had already been implement it and modelled and involved scientists and eat out to help out was designed to operate within the context of the safe lifting of mpi is. it didn't do anything further than that, it was a micro—policy to make sure that capacity which the scientists had already said was part of an overall package which could be safely delivered was actually used. it was done very much in that context and in the same way that other economic decisions like vat cuts the hospitality or stamp duty cuts or

anything else grants for the hospitality industry wouldn't ordinarily be cleared with medical advisers, knows this because we had already made the collective decision to open in the hospitality in this policy sat beneath that.- policy sat beneath that. while defendin: policy sat beneath that. while defending the _ policy sat beneath that. while defending the eat _ policy sat beneath that. while defending the eat out - policy sat beneath that. while defending the eat out to - policy sat beneath that. while defending the eat out to help| policy sat beneath that. while defending the eat out to help out scheme rishi sunak pointed out they were three months for any objections to be raised between announcing the scheme and its introduction. what scheme and its introduction. what eo - le scheme and its introduction. what peeple have _ scheme and its introduction. what people have missed _ scheme and its introduction. what people have missed in _ scheme and its introduction. twat people have missed in this conversation is that there was almost a month between the announcement read out to help out and its commencement. a month for people to raise concerns that they may have had an actually it's precisely in those three meetings you mentioned, the 16th ofjuly, the chief medical officer talked about to significant risk, schools and winter. he did not mention it out to help out. on the 22nd ofjuly the

agenda item is august planning and again it was not raised by the chief scientific adviser or chief medical officer. on the 6th of august the minutes show that returning to schools was the single riskiest element of the government plan. those three meetings all happened after the announcement of eat outs to help out and all of them involved the chief scientific adviser and the chief medical officer, they considered specifically the forthcoming risks and at none of those meetings was it raised by them as an issue and indeed the pps to the prime minister has been specific in his evidence to this inquiry that he doesn't recall representation is being made to them to revisit the policy. i know there has been a lot of commentary on this point but there was almost a month between announcement and commencement as i've outlined my reasons why we implement of the policy and why we thought it was the right thing to do

and i believe it was the right thing to do to safeguard jobs in the context of the safe reopening that had already been agreed, but none of those moments in those meetings, there was plenty of opportunity for people to raise it either with me or the prime minister and i don't recall it was raised at all. let's no live recall it was raised at all. let's go live now — recall it was raised at all. let's go live now to _ recall it was raised at all. let's go live now to outside - recall it was raised at all. let's go live now to outside the - recall it was raised at all. let's go live now to outside the inquiry. a lot of attention on this eat outs to help out scheme. what stood out for you? i to help out scheme. what stood out for ou? .. . to help out scheme. what stood out for ou? ~ ., .,, for you? i think that was the most a . itated for you? i think that was the most agitated we _ for you? i think that was the most agitated we saw _ for you? i think that was the most agitated we saw the _ for you? i think that was the most agitated we saw the prime - for you? i think that was the most l agitated we saw the prime minister all day. he was very defensive about all day. he was very defensive about all of it. he knew it was coming, it's something that has been trialled four weeks here at the inquiry. we heard from scientists who said they did know anything about the scheme before it was launched, we've heard from politicians who said they did know about it and today we get the defence from rishi sunak. he's always said the government followed

scientific advice. he put some meat on the bones of what he meant by that and as you heard in that clip he was talking about broadly speaking there wasn't any scientific problem with opening up hospitality and therefore in his view to introduce a scheme which used the capacity within the industry didn't need to be run past the scientists. i think it's quite interesting how tetchy he sounded when it was put to him. he said his primary concern was always protecting the jobs of what he called the particularly vulnerable people. so quite a striking moment at the inquiry. we have known that point was coming up all along and certainly rishi sunak not pulling his punches on that and very much defending what he saw as a very much defending what he saw as a very important strategy during the pandemic and after that first lockdown to kick—start the

hospitality industry and the economy more widely. he hospitality industry and the economy more widely-— more widely. he was also defending the prime minister _ more widely. he was also defending the prime minister and _ more widely. he was also defending the prime minister and the - the prime minister and the decision—making process within downing street. decision-making process within downing street.— decision-making process within downing street. decision-making process within downin~street. , ., , downing street. yes. if you had been exectin: downing street. yes. if you had been exneeting him _ downing street. yes. if you had been exneeting him to _ downing street. yes. if you had been expecting him to stick— downing street. yes. if you had been expecting him to stick the _ downing street. yes. if you had been expecting him to stick the knife - expecting him to stick the knife into his old boss, he certainly didn't do that. he was asked about so—called dysfunctionality at the centre of government and he said it didn't seem like him —— like that to him. he said it felt fine to me. he was talking about in particular this idea of dysfunctionality and did it work and he said i always had access to the prime minister and i could always put forward my views on things particularly on the economy. but also on this question about borisjohnson and whether he was indecisive, we've heard from various witnesses not least the former top

political aide dominic cummings who referred to donis —— borisjohnson is the trolley, rishi sunak defended that and even presented it as a positive the borisjohnson was weighing up loads of different factors before making a decision and there was no weakness in changing i's mind and in fact it was a strength because it meant you were listening to all the possible outcomes in what were definitely unprecedented times.— outcomes in what were definitely unprecedented times. going back to the beginning _ unprecedented times. going back to the beginning of— unprecedented times. going back to the beginning of his _ unprecedented times. going back to the beginning of his evidence - unprecedented times. going back to the beginning of his evidence and i the beginning of his evidence and the beginning of his evidence and the start of the day and he was very keen to get an apology out wasn't he? . keen to get an apology out wasn't he? , ., , ., , keen to get an apology out wasn't he? , ., keen to get an apology out wasn't he? ., he? yes as most of the political firures he? yes as most of the political figures who _ he? yes as most of the political figures who have _ he? yes as most of the political figures who have been - he? yes as most of the political figures who have been at - he? yes as most of the political figures who have been at this i figures who have been at this inquiry have been. i thought his language because quite interesting. we apologise for all this pain and suffering caused as a result of the actions that were taken, not necessarily taking personal

responsibility but acknowledging decisions were made in pain and suffering was caused. i don't think we've got any protesters out here now, most of them are still in the inquiry room. we've had people from bereaved families and people are lost people during the pandemic, many of whom have travelled hundreds of miles to protest and go into the inquiry and to sit and listen in person to these various little figures, so that was a direct apology to them but quite clearly there is a broader audience. one other thing just to mention, rishi sunak was asked about reports with her again that the treasury was referred to as the pro—death squad because of its stance on wanting to reopen the economy and how that could have been at odds with tighter restrictions on that sort of thing. again, he was quite defensive of the treasury inside he had not heard that characterisation but was defensive about the people within

his department and he said they worked very hard and they were certain schemes like the furlough and eager to help out, they were doing things he said that others felt could not be done and in doing so save the livelihoods of millions of people. so very defensive of the people he worked within the treasury and not pulling his punches in the last few minutes of the inquiry. still some more evidence to go and he's going to be taking back to the stand in about eight minutes' time. for now, thank you. an influential group of conservative backbenchers says the governments new legislation on the run this aside plan doesn't go far enough to ensure deportation flights will take off. the european research group says the proposed law provided a partial and incomplete solution to the issue of legal challenges. live now to our

political correspondent. just explain who the arg have and how influential they are. the explain who the arg have and how influential they are.— explain who the arg have and how influential they are. the arg group at a fraction _ influential they are. the arg group at a fraction of _ influential they are. the arg group at a fraction of conservative - influential they are. the arg group at a fraction of conservative mps i at a fraction of conservative mps and on the right wing of the party. perhaps most famous for having played a key role in bringing down theresa may's government over the brexit deal which they chose not to back the time. their announcement today shows how this is fast becoming a big problem for the government. the chair of the arg said the government would be best advised to pull through on the bill and then come up with a revised version. he said it's full of holes, essentially saying it doesn't go far enoughin essentially saying it doesn't go far enough in stopping people going to live under. the government has responded by publishing its own legal advice and their argument is

completely blocking legal challenges in the courts would go against what they call international law and also alien to the uk plasma constitutional tradition. the government has a problem here in that they already say they have gone as far as they can. they have some conservative mps and other factions of the party who would suggest they have perhaps already gone too far, who are having the own meeting later this evening. and then they have this evening. and then they have this group saying it's not far enough. the question really is how mps vote when this comes before the house of commons is expected tomorrow. they have three choices, they can vote for it and hope to make changes further down the line, they can abstain which creates a problem if enough of them choose not to vote at all or they can vote against it and attempts to block the bill completely. all the mps were meeting at different times today will all make their own individual

decisions but this really is a very fast moving picture at the moment in terms of mps and quite unclear what many of them will choose to do. we have that vote tomorrow, last week when the immigration minister resigned over this issue there were murmurings from some quarters that this could lead to some kind of leadership challenge for rishi sunak. do you think that could happen sooner than murmurings are certainly very and that would be true to say. certainly very and that would be true to say-— certainly very and that would be truetosa. , , ., true to say. nobody is quite going that far in terms _ true to say. nobody is quite going that far in terms of _ true to say. nobody is quite going that far in terms of actually - true to say. nobody is quite going| that far in terms of actually saying we want to see a leadership challenge immediately. i think the consideration for many in the conservative party is whether that is what the public want and whether they would be punished for that when it comes to a general election. or whether they are best off spec —— sticking with rishi sunak. that is

part of the tactics, whether they vote for the bill tomorrow, whether they amend it further down the line, whether they choose to block it. one of the things is how much confidence that they have in rishi sunak and what is the best strategy in terms of stopping the boats as they say and having the leadership and direction of the conservative party that they want. we direction of the conservative party that they want-— that they want. we have that vote tomorrow- — that they want. we have that vote tomorrow. how's _ that they want. we have that vote tomorrow. how's it _ that they want. we have that vote tomorrow. how's it to _ that they want. we have that vote tomorrow. how's it to work? - that they want. we have that vote tomorrow. how's it to work? they will be about _ tomorrow. how's it to work? they will be about in _ tomorrow. how's it to work? they will be about in the _ tomorrow. how's it to work? they will be about in the house - tomorrow. how's it to work? iie: will be about in the house of commons and mps will today decide how each individually they will want to vote. the government would expect to vote. the government would expect to get a vote through at second reading which is what's happening tomorrow, frankly is quite unusual we are even having this conversation at this stage. we wouldn't be expecting to have a government that has a bill going to second reading

but is proving so challenging and controversial among its own ranks. but we will find out tomorrow whether it does get through that second reading and what exactly happens next. find second reading and what exactly happens next-— second reading and what exactly ha ens next. �* ., happens next. and the government have published _ happens next. and the government have published some _ happens next. and the government have published some legal - happens next. and the government have published some legal advice i have published some legal advice around this. take us through that. their argument is essentially that completely blocking court challenges wouldn't be illegal, it would be a breach of international obligations and it would be alien to the uk plasma constitutional tradition. the example they used is if someone was pregnant then it may not be possible to put them on a flight to rwanda, that might not be something that they would want to see happen. it's those kinds of examples that are being used to suggest one way or the other has to be some sort of limited

legal challenge of this policy and the courts and they will continue to say that is something the country is obligated to do.— obligated to do. thank you for brinuain obligated to do. thank you for bringing us — obligated to do. thank you for bringing us up _ obligated to do. thank you for bringing us up to _ obligated to do. thank you for bringing us up to date - obligated to do. thank you for bringing us up to date on - obligated to do. thank you for bringing us up to date on that| bringing us up to date on that story. there is a debate happening at the select committee around this issue of rwanda asylum scheme and it's about the cost of the scheme. so matthew white croft wrote a letter to mps on thursday confirming the total payment made to rwanda in 2023 was £100 million, that's in addition to the hundred and 20 million paid last year and there is also a £50 million payment due next year. he is being quizzed right now on the cost and we can take a listen. i on the cost and we can take a listen. .. on the cost and we can take a listen. ~ ., , on the cost and we can take a listen. ~ .,, ,., ,., , ., listen. i think it was somebody at that end but _ listen. i think it was somebody at that end but i _ listen. i think it was somebody at that end but i don't _ listen. i think it was somebody at that end but i don't know- listen. i think it was somebody at that end but i don't know that - listen. i think it was somebody at | that end but i don't know that the show_ that end but i don't know that the show and — that end but i don't know that the show and it— that end but i don't know that the show and it definitely wasn't authorised from the government because — authorised from the government because they share the same understanding i have said on multiple _ understanding i have said on

multiple occasions about the commercially sensitive nature of the information. this commercially sensitive nature of the information-— information. this information may not have got _ information. this information may not have got into _ information. this information may not have got into the _ information. this information may not have got into the public - information. this information may. not have got into the public domain untiljuly 2a next year, this from your point of view and the government point of view is quite the sensitive matter so what are you going to do to investigate how it was that it got into the imf papers? there is an investigation under way my colleagues in the high commission are pursuing that without the government of rwanda partners. if and when — government of rwanda partners. if and when there is anything helpful to say— and when there is anything helpful to say i_ and when there is anything helpful to say i will tell this committee. you keep— to say i will tell this committee. you keep telling us you are bearing in mind _ you keep telling us you are bearing in mind commercial— you keep telling us you are bearing in mind commercial sensitivity- you keep telling us you are bearing in mind commercial sensitivity so i in mind commercial sensitivity so why does— in mind commercial sensitivity so why does it — in mind commercial sensitivity so why does it cease _ in mind commercial sensitivity so why does it cease to _ in mind commercial sensitivity so why does it cease to become - why does it cease to become commercially— why does it cease to become commercially sensitive - why does it cease to become commercially sensitive by i why does it cease to become i commercially sensitive byjuly why does it cease to become - commercially sensitive byjuly or april— commercially sensitive byjuly or april next— commercially sensitive byjuly or april next year? _ commercially sensitive byjuly or april next year? what _ commercially sensitive byjuly or april next year? what changes? |

commercially sensitive byjuly or- april next year? what changes? hora; april next year? what changes? how didn't envisage _ april next year? what changes? didn't envisage a situation where april next year? what changes?- didn't envisage a situation where we would _ didn't envisage a situation where we would be _ didn't envisage a situation where we would be publishing the actual costs were paid _ would be publishing the actual costs were paid to another country. it's very important... fist were paid to another country. it's very important. . ._ were paid to another country. it's very important... at which point of sto ed very important... at which point of stopped becoming _ very important... at which point of stopped becoming commercially i stopped becoming commercially sensitive? ., ., ., ., ., sensitive? you have to have a mechanism — sensitive? you have to have a mechanism and _ sensitive? you have to have a mechanism and we _ sensitive? you have to have a mechanism and we do - sensitive? you have to have a mechanism and we do and i sensitive? you have to have a| mechanism and we do and it's sensitive? you have to have a - mechanism and we do and it's called the annual— mechanism and we do and it's called the annual report and accounts where the annual report and accounts where the government spending is made public _ the government spending is made ublic. �* ., , �* ., , public. and it doesn't worry you that they will _ public. and it doesn't worry you that they will be _ public. and it doesn't worry you that they will be any _ public. and it doesn't worry you | that they will be any commercial impact? — that they will be any commercial impact? hie _ that they will be any commercial im act? ~ ., ., that they will be any commercial imact? ~ ., ., ., ., impact? we will have to manage them when the time — impact? we will have to manage them when the time comes. _ impact? we will have to manage them when the time comes. but _ impact? we will have to manage them when the time comes. but on - impact? we will have to manage them when the time comes. but on this - when the time comes. but on this sort of issue _ when the time comes. but on this sort of issue we _ when the time comes. but on this sort of issue we have _ when the time comes. but on this sort of issue we have reached - when the time comes. but on this sort of issue we have reached an. sort of issue we have reached an agreement— sort of issue we have reached an agreement with our government of rwanda _ agreement with our government of rwanda partners that annually is the appropriate way of accounting for the money. we appropriate way of accounting for the money-— appropriate way of accounting for the mone . ~ ., i. m the money. we did write to you... we are auoin the money. we did write to you... we are going to — the money. we did write to you... we are going to leave _ the money. we did write to you... we are going to leave that _ the money. we did write to you... we are going to leave that committee - are going to leave that committee hearing talking about the costs of the rwanda migration plan and you

can watch that, it's being streamed on iplayer, but we will go live now back to the covid inquiry way rishi sunak is giving evidence after a short break. in sunak is giving evidence after a short break-— sunak is giving evidence after a short break. in a meeting on the 15th of september _ short break. in a meeting on the 15th of september 2020 - short break. in a meeting on the 15th of september 2020 it - short break. in a meeting on the 15th of september 2020 it was i short break. in a meeting on the - 15th of september 2020 it was agreed that regulations would be brought in to prohibit staff movement between care homes as a matter of law and the proposals were drafted and then went out for consultation. by december 2020 he describes how the hsc had finalised proposals which included a compensation package for such workers forgone hours which required treasury agreement. mr hancock said for the record in a second statement that it became clear that h was reticent to fund a scheme to support staff affected by the proposed regulation and that the implementation of the plan was delayed again. he uses the word

opposition in the same paragraph. according to a later dhs submission to miss danko on the 5th of january 2021 it noted that hmc ministers decided not to fund the compensation scheme saying it was the wrong mechanism but they were open to options to support increased staff supply. they were not brought forward due to the lack of compensation for shortages at that stage. my first question is, what was your involvement in this process? what was the reluctance and reticence? the first thing to say is that, in particular. _ the first thing to say is that, in particular, from the beginning of the pandemic, iwas particular, from the beginning of the pandemic, i was cognisant that this was— the pandemic, i was cognisant that this was have an enormous impact on the nhs _ this was have an enormous impact on the nhs and — this was have an enormous impact on the nhs and social care workforce, family— the nhs and social care workforce, family and — the nhs and social care workforce, family and organisations, which is why we _ family and organisations, which is why we put— family and organisations, which is

why we put an enormous amount of funding _ why we put an enormous amount of funding in_ why we put an enormous amount of funding in place to support them.