Image source, PA Media

That's it for our coverage of today's evidence at the UK Covid-19 Inquiry.

Rishi Sunak left the building just before 17:00 - he now faces other challenges, not least getting his new Rwanda policy through Parliament on Tuesday.

Follow our live coverage of the Rwanda story here - and read our round-up of today's evidence here.

Thanks for reading this page. The editors were Owen Amos and Marita Moloney; the writers were Tara Mewawalla, Imogen James, Emily Atkinson, Krystyna Gajda, Jim Reed, Nick Triggle, Henry Zeffman, and Helena Rothman.

The prime minister has finished giving his evidence. Here are the top lines:

• Apology: Like Johnson, Sunak began by saying he was "deeply sorry" to those who "lost loved ones" during the pandemic, plus all those who "suffered"
• Missing WhatsApps: He does not have access to WhatsApps sent during the pandemic, as his phone has changed "multiple times" - but he added he was not a "prolific user" of the system and significant messages were recorded elsewhere
• No 10 culture: While previous witnesses reported "disfunction" in No10 and the Cabinet Office, Sunak said both offices "felt fine to me"

• Johnson's decision-making: Asked if Boris Johnson could be seen "backing and veering", Sunak defended him, saying he was right to "test out different points of view"
• Treasury alarm: Sunak recalled the "extremely serious" rise in gilt rates - i.e. the cost of UK government borrowing - on 19 March 2020, causing "enormous anxiety" inside the Treasury
• Eat Out the Help Out: Sunak said the scheme in August 2020 was designed to save pubs and restaurants from "devasatating" job losses and - as the hospitality sector had already reopened - was safe
• People could have objected: He called the scheme a "micro policy", and said advisers had "almost a month" to raise concerns

• Tier system: He said he was "never persuaded" by the proposed September circuit breaker in England, with the alternative regional system enjoying "wide support"

Danny Friedman KC, representing four disabled people's organisations, asks whether the Treasury could have spent more to encourage care workers to stop working in multiple homes.

Sunak says that a cumulative £150 billion pounds was spent funding the healthcare sector but refuses to "speculate" on "something that I was not involved in".

Next, the inquiry hears from Leslie Thomas KC of the Federation of Ethnic Minority Healthcare Organisations.

He asks what measures were put in place to keep safe ethnic minority hospitality workers. Sunak says this is addressed in the "government's guidance to the sector", and elsewhere.

Asked if he agrees that the scheme "exacerbated structural inequalities", Sunak says he does not.

Representative of long Covid groups, Anthony Metzer KC, asks about whether, from 2020, there was enough data to show that long Covid would result in an increased cost to the Treasury.

Sunak says he has not seen "precise evidence" linking the rise in economic inactivity "precisely" to long Covid and argues the pattern is more "multifaceted" than that.

Image source, PA Media

More now from the core participants of the inquiry, representing specific groups.

Claire Mitchell KC represents Scottish Covid bereaved families. She says Scottish and Welsh leaders were concerned about funds not being released by the UK government when they made their wn lockdown decisions.

But Sunak says the Treasury made the "unprecedented" decision to provide extra funding to the devolved nations, allowing Scotland to implement policies that were "more generous" than those in England.

Rajiv Menon KC takes over on behalf of children's rights organisations, focusing on a 2020 campaign by Marcus Rashford to provide free school meals over the summer holidays.

The government initially resisted it, before changing policy.

Sunak says he cannot remember the discussions over this, but that the government's "overall" focus throughout the pandemic was "very much focused" on those on the lowest incomes.

He is pressed on whether he personally opposed more free school meals.

Sunak avoids answering directly and praises the provision of free school meals today, which is "greater" than pre-pandemic, he says.

Image source, Covid inquiry

After a short break, we have questions from Anna Morris KC, representing the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice campaign group.

She asks about funding and support for care workers during the pandemic. Sunak says the policies around supporting these workers were the remit of the chief secretary to the Treasury and that they did not pass his desk.

Next is representative of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru Nia Gowman who asks whether, given the devolved administrations were not consulted on Eat Out to Help Out, they had the option to opt out.

"I don't recall receiving any formal submission from the Welsh to do that... if that was something they wanted to raise I'm sure they would have raised it through the normal channels," replies Sunak.

Image source, Covid inquiry

Hugo Keith KC, the inquiry's lawyer, is on to his final few questions now.

Focusing on the Treasury, he says material seen by the inquiry shows it was "pejoratively associated with death" and that some officials in No 10 described it as the "pro-death squad" as it was often "opposed to public health interventions".

Keith asks Sunak if he was aware of these terms.

"I do not think it is a fair characterisation," Sunak says, describing the Treasury as full of "incredibly hard-working people".

He says his colleagues acted in the public interest and "saved millions of people's livelihoods".

The inquiry lawyer is currently asking Sunak about the introduction of the tier system which was implemented on 14 October 2020 in England.

The prime minister says there was a "general consensus" that the local approach was the right one and that it had "wide support".

Keith suggests that scientific advisers were making it "plain" that the tiers would not get the R number - the rate at which coronavirus infection falls - below 1 and that the tiers did not have epidemiological justification.

Sunak disagrees, pointing to the deputy chief medical officer saying on 20 October that he did not think national action was justified at the time.

Sunak reiterates that he did not support the idea of a circuit breaker in September or October because he did not think "it would achieve its objectives".

We're moving on now to September 2020.

Sunak tells the inquiry he was "never particularly persuaded" by the idea of introducing a circuit breaker - a set of restrictions designed to stem the rate of infection and bring the number of Covid cases down.

To give you some background on that circuit breaker proposal at the time:

• Boris Johnson had been pressed by his chief scientific and medical advisers to bring in the measure to prevent the introduction of tighter, longer term restrictions later on
• The plans were also supported by Dominic Cummings, Johnson's chief aide, former Health Secretary Matt Hancock and former chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Michael Gove
• Ultimately, Johnson did not introduce the circuit breaker. A second national lockdown came into force on 5 November 2020

Inquiry counsel Hugo Keith KC is now moving his questioning away from the Eat Out to Help Out scheme and on to other matters.

Rishi Sunak has been defending the policy, which was announced on 8 July 2020 and introduced the following month during his time as chancellor.

The PM told the inquiry, as you'll see in the clip below, that the main aim of the scheme was to protect "millions of jobs" in the hospitality sector.

Hugo Keith, the lawyer for the inquiry, is questioning Sunak about the role of Sage, the scientific advisory committee, which provided advice to the government during Covid.

Keith puts it to the PM that "Sage advised while the government decided" on whether to implement certain policies.

Does Sunak think Sage could ever have been in a position to offer recommendations "off its own bat" without first being asked by the government to advise?

Sunak says that, even on the scientific advice, members of this group were "deeply divided" over evidence and that was "underappreciated" in hindsight.

He makes a second point that the science was "uncertain" and "prone to change."

The advice coming from Sage changed over time because of this, Sunak tells the inquiry, such as in relation to face masks and schools.

PM comes out fighting in defence of Eat Out to Help Outpublished at 14:47 Greenwich Mean Time 11 December 2023

14:47 GMT 11 December 2023

Pete Saull
Political correspondent

This morning’s evidence focused on broader themes rather than specific policies – and Rishi Sunak appeared quite comfortable with the subject matter.

As soon as Hugo Keith KC turned to the Eat Out to Help Out scheme though, the prime minister became more animated, offering a fulsome defence of the initiative.

Sunak argued that restaurants were already subject to restrictions based on advice provided by scientists.

He looked frustrated at the suggestion that the government’s scientific advisers weren’t properly consulted.

They had “ample opportunity” to raise concerns, he said.

The PM is sometimes criticised for getting tetchy under scrutiny. But on this, he clearly feels he’s justified in coming out fighting.

Hugo Keith KC, lead counsel to the inquiry, asks Sunak why the Eat Out to Help Out scheme was not extended beyond 31 August 2020.

Sunak says it was "always meant to be temporary" and "credibly temporary, because otherwise you don't elicit the [behavioural] response you need".

Three meetings held on 16 July, 22 July and 6 August 2020 are now being discussed in relation to the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.

Sunak says there was "almost a month" between the announcement of the policy and its commencement, where ministers and experts could "raise concerns they may have had".

He goes on: "Those three meetings all happened after the announcement of Eat Out to Help Out, all of them involved the chief scientific adviser and the chief medical officer.

"They considered specifically the forthcoming risks and in none of them was it raised by them as an issue."

As a reminder, earlier in the inquiry we heard from former chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance who said scientists did not see the policy before it was announced and were not involved "in the run-up to it".

Image source, HM Treasury

Rishi Sunak is still being pressed about his decisions around the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme.

He says at the time his priority was jobs.

"My primary concern was protecting millions of jobs of particularly vulnerable people," he says.

Data he was working from, Sunak adds, showed that unless the government did something, there would be "devastating consequences" for people who worked in the hospitality industry.

What was the impact of Sunak's scheme?published at 14:23 Greenwich Mean Time 11 December 2023

14:23 GMT 11 December 2023

Robert Cuffe
Head of statistics

The Eat Out To Help Out scheme was a 50% discount on meals and soft drinks in pubs and restaurants.

It was offered around the UK on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays in August 2020.

It subsidised about 2.5 meals out for every person in the UK that month. Some of those meals would have happened without the scheme, but not all.

The hospitality industry welcomed it, but for them, furlough and tax breaks offered more support.

Scientists have the told the inquiry that some of the rises in cases and deaths around the time of the scheme are likely down to the mixing it encouraged.

However, the UK wasn’t the only country to see cases rise during August and as we moved into the autumn - as shown in the graph below.

And levels in September were still far below where they ended up in December.

• You can read more about the impact of Eat Out to Help Out here

Inquiry counsel Hugo Keith KC turns his attention to the Eat Out to Help Out scheme - announced on 8 July 2020, and introduced the following month.

Keith asks Sunak why, in light of the "absolute risk of transmission" posed by the scheme, was it not put in front of the Treasury, Sage, the chief medical officer and health secretary, or anyone outside No 10, beforehand.

Sunak calls the scheme a "micro-policy" designed in line with the safe lifting of Covid measures, which included the opening of hospitality.

He says there was time for it to be challenged before it was introduced.

The inquiry is back after a lunch break and lawyer Hugo Keith KC begins by discussing changes in social distancing rules in June 2020.

The government announced that from 4 July, a "one metre plus" rule would be introduced in England when it was not possible to stay 2m apart.

The distance could be lowered with "mitigations", so people could be closer without a higher risk of transmission, Boris Johnson said.

Sunak explains he convened secretaries of state to discuss the impacts of distancing and then wrote to the PM on 3 June with that panel's recommendations.

He says Johnson convened a review panel involving the chief medical officer and cabinet secretary to discuss the potential for changing distancing rules - Sunak did not attend.

Asked if this debate involved the consideration of the "risks" of changing distancing rules, Sunak says: "I wasn't privy to the deliberation from the panel."

But he agrees that the panel would have considered the risk.

Sighs and groans from public gallery - while Sunak sticks to scriptpublished at 14:07 Greenwich Mean Time 11 December 2023

14:07 GMT 11 December 2023

Chris Mason
Political editor, reporting from the inquiry

Unlike the scrutiny of some recent witnesses, the questioning of Rishi Sunak by Hugo Keith KC hasn’t been strictly chronological and has appeared broader in its framing.

The prime minister — rarely less than disciplined and cautious in public and even more rarely lured by the temptation to use colourful language — stuck to his principal and unsurprising argument that the country’s economic welfare was his primary concern.

We heard of real worry in the Treasury in March 2020 that the government was briefly struggling to borrow money. This was resolved but Sunak pointed out the consequences of having to do so then still has economic consequences now.

And without ever saying it pithily, there is a recurring theme of the prime minister saying he constantly emphasised in private the downsides of lockdown measures while accepting that public messaging had to be more simply expressed, especially in the early months.

The frequency with which Sunak has said he is unable to recall particular meetings has become a source of irritation in the public gallery — the sighs and groans from some of the relatives of the bereaved became louder during the morning session.

Image source, PA Media

Earlier today, Hugo Keith referenced an interview Rishi Sunak gave to the Spectator magazine, external during the Tory leadership race of summer 2022.

In it, the former chancellor claimed that, during the pandemic, ministers did not talk enough about the "trade-offs" involved in introducing lockdowns.

He said possible impacts on wider society were "never part" of internal discussions, adding meetings were "literally me around that table, just fighting".

But today - when discussing the early stages of the pandemic - Sunak struck a different tone.

"Was I able to input advice to the prime minister or when decisions were being made? I felt I was, I didn't feel I'd been shut out or not able to participate," he said.

Sunak added today that, while the implications of the first lockdown were not discussed "particularly extensively", there was still "vigorous debate" around its implementation.