Chancellor today failed to deny the existence of further personal
communications with David Cameron’s Greensill Capital.
In his first appearance in the Commons since the Greensill
lobbying scandal unfolded, Sunak refused to answer a direct
question about his own role in the return of Conservative sleaze.
Asked by Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, Anneliese Dodds, if he had
published “every communication relating to government business on
Greensill, including with David Cameron”, the Chancellor failed
to answer.
The exchange came after the Prime Minister’s promise to publish
every ‘personal exchange’ related to Covid contracts.
Sunak was also asked about reports that he flip-flopped over
support for a second national lockdown last autumn.
On 14 October 2020, Sunak described a temporary national lockdown
as "a blunt instrument" that would cause “needless damage”. When
asked to rule out a circuit breaker six days later he said “I
agree with the Prime Minister”.
But last weekend it was reported that the Chancellor sided
against the Prime Minister and came down in favour of a second
national lockdown at a crunch Cabinet meeting just 10 days later.
When asked by Dodds if this change of heart was driven by science
and the needs of our economy or the internal politics of the
Conservative Party, Sunak claimed he was referring in the past to
discussions about a circuit breaker.
The SAGE committee proposed a circuit breaker on 21 September
2020.
Speaking after Treasury Questions, , Labour’s
Shadow Chancellor, said:
“For weeks the Chancellor has been dodging scrutiny about his
texts, phone calls and secret meetings with David Cameron’s
Greensill Capital.
“Today I gave him a chance to set the record straight with a
simple question: has he published details of all those
communications? He didn’t answer.
“The Chancellor said he’d level with the British public – his
failure to do so just raises further questions about his role in
the return of Conservative sleaze.”
Ends
Notes to editors:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, faced with a choice
between a national blunt instrument that would wreak enormous
economic damage, and something that is more finely calibrated
region by region based on the science, there is no choice to
make?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a blunt instrument.
It would cause needless damage to parts of our country where
virus rates are low.
Anneliese Dodds
Last week, when the Prime Minister was asked whether a
circuit breaker is likely, he said, “I rule out nothing”. Does
the Chancellor rule it out—yes or no?
Of course I agree with the Prime Minister.
