his immigration minister robert jenrick. the bell they have published so far does allow ministers to override some parts of the human rights act, but not completely ignored all european human rights laws, which was something that some mps on the right of the conservative party had been calling for. that has led to backlash from that wing of his party, including the former home secretary suella braverman, who has told the bbc this morning that this would leave the rwanda bill open to further legal challenges from potential asylum seekers and their representatives as well. so i think there will be a couple of key questions that rishi sunak will be facing in this press conference. firstly, there is the question hanging over him today of who on earth will he replace robertjenrick with? or can be the immigration minister at this time? i think this is a tricky question because robert jenrick was somebody who was a close ally of his, was supposed to be someone very loyal to rishi sunak until his resignation. you will appease both wings of the party at this time? then there is the question of whether he really believes that this bill can now get through if the tory right and labour join together to vote it down. and the overarching question of all of this, well the rwanda plan actually work? these are always questions that rishi sunak will face this morning, he will face questions from journalists but also no doubt from his own mps on a day when he has told them, and downing street have made it clear, that they need to, in their words, made it clear, that they need to, in theirwords, unite made it clear, that they need to, in their words, unite or die. made it clear, that they need to, in theirwords, unite or die. i made it clear, that they need to, in their words, unite or die. i think this is an incredibly testing moment for his leadership.— for his leadership. suella braverman... _ for his leadership. suella braverman. .. chris - for his leadership. suellal braverman. .. chris mason for his leadership. suella - braverman. .. chris mason called it for his leadership. suella _ braverman. .. chris mason called it a braverman... chris mason called it a lukewarm response when she was asked when rishi sunak will lead the tories are the next general election? what is key now what happens and what the supporters of suella braverman do next stop i think her words were that she hoped he would still lead the conservative party into the next general election. party into the next general election-— party into the next general election. ., ., , , election. the word hoped being re election. the word hoped being pretty key- _ election. the word hoped being pretty key- i — election. the word hoped being pretty key. ithink— election. the word hoped being pretty key. i think it _ election. the word hoped being pretty key. i think it certainly . election. the word hoped being. pretty key. i think it certainly did not suggest that she has a huge amount of confidence in him herself. we know their relationship has of course been tested ever since she was sacked as his home secretary. she has been pretty damning already about his response when it comes to immigration and certain immigration policies that she wanted to push through. as you say, the big question now is what to her supporters to come up to the critics of this bill do next? do they start trying to trigger a confidence vote in the prime minister again? we have already had several of those, as we know, in the last two years. would they want to do that again? a question that many in westminster are asking this morning. there's also the question of the vote itself, when this bill does go to a vote among mps in parliament, do they vote against it? in itself, is that a test of confidence in the prime minister and the government at this time? there is a sort of air of 2018 about all of this. if you remember during the brexiteers over that period where we saw similar sort of faction is emerging in the conservative party and really key test for the prime minister about whether they can unite or whether their leadership isjust whether they can unite or whether their leadership is just not up to that test. their leadership is 'ust not up to that test. ., ~ , ., , their leadership is 'ust not up to that test. ., ~' , ., , . ~ that test. thank you very much. we will be live — that test. thank you very much. we will be live at _ that test. thank you very much. we will be live at downing _ that test. thank you very much. we will be live at downing street - that test. thank you very much. we will be live at downing street when| will be live at downing street when the prime minister holds that a news conference later. you are watching bbc news. let's go to the covid inquiry because borisjohnson has just started his second day of questioning. just started his second day of questioning-— questioning. the underlying scientific advice _ questioning. the underlying scientific advice was - questioning. the underlying scientific advice was that i questioning. the underlying - scientific advice was that staying 20 metres away from other people remained the best way of reducing corona transmission —— staying two metres away. it is equally apparent that there was clear economic pressure upon you to reduce the two metre rule in order to make business viable. once the two metre, one metre rule issue a particularly acute example of that balance between public health and economic considerations? in a between public health and economic considerations?— considerations? in a way, it certainly — considerations? in a way, it certainly was. _ considerations? in a way, it certainly was. but - considerations? in a way, it certainly was. but i - considerations? in a way, it certainly was. but i think i considerations? in a way, it certainly was. but i think it| considerations? in a way, it - certainly was. but i think it wasn't quite _ certainly was. but i think it wasn't quite as_ certainly was. but i think it wasn't quite as simple as that. the two meirem — quite as simple as that. the two metre... your observation that the scientists— metre... your observation that the scientists were recommending two metres_ scientists were recommending two metres is— scientists were recommending two metres is of course correct, or many scientists— metres is of course correct, or many scientists were recommending two metres _ scientists were recommending two metres. some were not, some are saying — metres. some were not, some are saying one _ metres. some were not, some are saying one metre. but it was also true that— saying one metre. but it was also true that three metres would have been _ true that three metres would have been better, four or five metres would _ been better, four or five metres would have been epidemiologically more _ would have been epidemiologically more effective than two metres. it was a _ more effective than two metres. it was a question of where to draw the line. was a question of where to draw the line and _ was a question of where to draw the line. and there was plenty of evidence _ line. and there was plenty of evidence from around the world that other— evidence from around the world that other countries had gone from... down _ other countries had gone from... down to— other countries had gone from... down to one _ other countries had gone from... down to one metre. there were other international— down to one metre. there were other international comparisons that had done _ international comparisons that had done it— international comparisons that had done it safely. so, although you are quite _ done it safely. so, although you are quite correct that hospitality and other— quite correct that hospitality and other sectors were desperate to be able to— other sectors were desperate to be able to operate, it was very, very difficult _ able to operate, it was very, very difficult under the two metre rule, did not— difficult under the two metre rule, did not seem to me, on balance, to be epidemiologically unsound to do it. i be epidemiologically unsound to do it i of— be epidemiologically unsound to do it. i of course had to balance the very— it. i of course had to balance the very considerable hardship that had been caused to people by the effective closure of hospitality as a result — effective closure of hospitality as a result of the two metre rule. younq — a result of the two metre rule. young mackay posed the question the way i young mackay posed the question the way i did _ young mackay posed the question the way i did because i've actually quoted — way i did because i've actually quoted your own words- way i did because i've actually quoted your own words from your summin: quoted your own words from your summing up _ quoted your own words from your summing up of— quoted your own words from your summing up of that _ quoted your own words from your summing up of that cabinet - quoted your own words from your| summing up of that cabinet office meeting on the 2nd ofjune. the prime minister said, the underlying scientific advice, obviously the combination of the various views you had received, was that staying two metres away from people remained the best way of reducing coronavirus transmission. there was no doubt... three metres would have been even better~ _ three metres would have been even better. , ., , ., better. indeed, but there was no doubt at all _ better. indeed, but there was no doubt at all that _ better. indeed, but there was no | doubt at all that epidemiologically the pre—existing two metre rule was the pre—existing two metre rule was the best way to proceed epidemiologically, but you were under, understandably, intense economic pressure to try to take a different path in order to be able to alleviate the economic burden. are plenty of other countries that had done — are plenty of other countries that had done the same. that are plenty of other countries that had done the same.— are plenty of other countries that had done the same. that debate took lace in had done the same. that debate took place in advance _ had done the same. that debate took place in advance of _ had done the same. that debate took place in advance of the _ had done the same. that debate took place in advance of the eat _ had done the same. that debate took place in advance of the eat out - had done the same. that debate took place in advance of the eat out to - place in advance of the eat out to help out scheme, which was put into place in august in those mid week days, tuesday, wednesday, thursday during the four weeks of august. in your statement, you made plain that your statement, you made plain that you and the chancellor thought there was a sound policy rationale for the introduction of the scheme. where the policy rationale is, firstly, the policy rationale is, firstly, the obvious economic support for the hospitality sector, but secondly, to influence social behaviour by incentivising the public to engage more generally endorse hospitality. that was the thinking. the more generally endorse hospitality. that was the thinking.— that was the thinking. the thinking was that the _ that was the thinking. the thinking was that the country _ that was the thinking. the thinking was that the country had _ that was the thinking. the thinking was that the country had made - that was the thinking. the thinking was that the country had made a i that was the thinking. the thinking i was that the country had made a huge effort, _ was that the country had made a huge effort, that— was that the country had made a huge effort, that we had got the r rate down _ effort, that we had got the r rate down below one, the disease was no longer— down below one, the disease was no longer spreading in the way it had been, _ longer spreading in the way it had been. and — longer spreading in the way it had been, and within the budget of risk, it was_ been, and within the budget of risk, it was now— been, and within the budget of risk, it was now possible to open up hospitality. that being so, logically, if we were going to take advantage of that, if we were going to allow— advantage of that, if we were going to allow people to take advantage, allow _ to allow people to take advantage, allow the _ to allow people to take advantage, allow the hospitality sector to take advantage of the freedom that our collective — advantage of the freedom that our collective efforts had won them, then it _ collective efforts had won them, then it seemed to me to make sense to make _ then it seemed to me to make sense to make sure that they actually had some _ to make sure that they actually had some customers. that was my thinking. — some customers. that was my thinking. it— some customers. that was my thinking. it seemed to me that if it was safe _ thinking. it seemed to me that if it was safe to — thinking. it seemed to me that if it was safe to open hospitality, then it must— was safe to open hospitality, then it must be — was safe to open hospitality, then it must be safe for people to go to hospitality. do it must be safe for people to go to hositali . ,, it must be safe for people to go to hospitalitv-— hospitality. do you accept, as professor _ hospitality. do you accept, as professor edmonds _ hospitality. do you accept, as professor edmonds said i hospitality. do you accept, as professor edmonds said in i hospitality. do you accept, as| professor edmonds said in his evidence to this inquiry, it is one thing to take your foot off the brake, which is of course what had been done in terms of easing the restrictions injune and july, but to put your foot on the accelerator is by application quite different. use the word progress, but i'm going to suggest to you that it is a different thing to do. utmost resect different thing to do. utmost respect for — different thing to do. utmost respect for professor - different thing to do. utmost i respect for professor edmonds. all different thing to do. utmost - respect for professor edmonds. all i would _ respect for professor edmonds. all i would say— respect for professor edmonds. all i would say is — respect for professor edmonds. all i would say is that at the time the eat 0ut— would say is that at the time the eat out to — would say is that at the time the eat out to help out policy was being aired with _ eat out to help out policy was being aired with me for the first time, it did not— aired with me for the first time, it did not seem... it was not presented to me _ did not seem... it was not presented to me as— did not seem... it was not presented to me as an — did not seem... it was not presented to me as an acceleration, simply somethinq — to me as an acceleration, simply something to make sense of the freedoms — something to make sense of the freedoms that we were already qivinq — freedoms that we were already qivinq it— freedoms that we were already giving. it was not... i must emphasise, it was not at the time presented — emphasise, it was not at the time presented to me as something that would _ presented to me as something that would add — presented to me as something that would add to the budget of risk. but it was would add to the budget of risk. it was not would add to the budget of risk. emit it was not being presented to you by the scientist, was it? it was being presented to you by the treasury and the chancellor of the exchequer. the material makes it quite plain that they were the ones who proposed the scheme. the paperwork makes it absolutely plain. at the same time, your chief medical officer, professor chris whitty, at a covid meeting on the 22nd ofjune, was saying that in general terms the proposed easing of restrictions, with relation to indoor hospitality, was at the top end of the risk boundary. so you knew that there was an element of risk in this. there had to be a degree of epidemiological gamble. that is logical and fair. i do epidemiological gamble. that is logical and fair.— logical and fair. i do not think that i logical and fair. i do not think that l thought _ logical and fair. i do not think that l thought that _ logical and fair. i do not think that l thought that that - logical and fair. i do not think. that i thought that that scheme logical and fair. i do not think- that i thought that that scheme in itself_ that i thought that that scheme in itself was — that i thought that that scheme in itself was a particular gamble at the time — itself was a particular gamble at the time. it certainly wasn't presented to me as such. nor am i confident— presented to me as such. nor am i confident that there is very substantial evidence that it did indeed — substantial evidence that it did indeed add to the r. although i differ— indeed add to the r. although i differ to — indeed add to the r. although i differ to what your inquiry has discovered. i cannot see anything that conclusively shows that it made a bi- that conclusively shows that it made a big difference. at the time, it wasn't — a big difference. at the time, it wasn't presented to me is something that would _ wasn't presented to me is something that would. can wasn't presented to me is something that would. ., wasn't presented to me is something that would. . ., ,': ::j~ ~ that would. can we have 232086, -a . es that would. can we have 232086, pages one- _ that would. can we have 232086, pages one- we — that would. can we have 232086, pages one. we will _ that would. can we have 232086, pages one. we will sit _ that would. can we have 232086, pages one. we will sit with i that would. can we have 232086, pages one. we will sit with one . that would. can we have 232086, | pages one. we will sit with one for the moment. this isjust to demonstrate, mrjohnson, that there was considerable debate between the treasury and number ten in relation to a voucher scheme which became the eat out to help out scheme. this is an e—mailfrom the eat out to help out scheme. this is an e—mail from the treasury, dated the 22nd of may. it refers to... the bottom of the page, the chancellor asking her to thank all the team is the meeting with you went very well. you complimented him on doing a greatjob. if wejust you complimented him on doing a greatjob. if we just go over the page, we can see a reference to presenting a plan forjuly. and then right at the bottom of the screen, chancellor clear... people save not spent, pm very keen on vouchers idea. there was a general debate going on for some time before august, and you expressed your optimism, as has been described, that the scheme was a good idea. the material does indeed seem to indicate that there was not a significant increase in infection after the scheme, although there is any material some suggestion it may have gone up to some degree, in different parts of the country, as you might expect. but you knew that the treasury and hmrc had not in fact sought scientific advice on the epidemiological consequences of the scheme. that must have been apparent to you. i scheme. that must have been apparent to ou. , , , ., ., to you. i see in my statement that i thou . ht to you. i see in my statement that i thought chris _ to you. i see in my statement that i thought chris and _ to you. i see in my statement that i thought chris and patrick— to you. i see in my statement that i thought chris and patrick must i to you. i see in my statement that i | thought chris and patrick must have known _ thought chris and patrick must have known or— thought chris and patrick must have known or did know about the eat out to help— known or did know about the eat out to help out. i said that because it wasn't _ to help out. i said that because it wasn't a _ to help out. i said that because it wasn't a very secret thing. i thought— wasn't a very secret