Rishi Sunak insists Eat Out To Help Out was the right thing to do at the Covid Inquiry as he dismisses claims it drove a wave of coronavirus cases

Rishi Sunak yesterday defended his Eat Out to Help Out scheme and his efforts to push for less draconian restrictions during the pandemic.

The Prime Minister, who served as Chancellor during the Covid crisis, rejected accusations that the Treasury was a “death squad”.

Speaking before the Covid inquiry, he insisted his approach was a matter of “social justice” and “doing the right thing” to save millions of jobs and boost the hardest-hit industries.

He also said the SAGE advisory group “overestimated” the rate of transmission of the virus in the early stages of the pandemic and that they were often “deeply divided” on scientific issues.

He said this was part of the reason he wanted restrictions to start being lifted from June 2020 after the first lockdown, and why he pushed for non-essential shops to be excluded from the second lockdown later that year.

Earlier in the inquiry it was reported that Chief Medical Officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty had described the restaurant food subsidy scheme as ‘Eat Out to Help the Virus’.

But Mr Sunak said: “My main concern was protecting the millions of jobs for the particularly vulnerable people who worked in this industry (hospitality).

“All the data, all the evidence, all the surveys, all the feedback from these companies showed that if we did nothing, many of these jobs would be at risk with devastating consequences for these people and their families.”

He said the scheme was “in no way responsible” for the second wave of Covid, that he “does not believe it is a risk” and that “it was the right thing to do to save jobs”.

The measure was part of Mr Sunak’s Summer Economic Update on 8 July 2020 and included up to £10 off the price of meals and/or non-alcoholic drinks consumed at participating establishments on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays in August. year.

He rejected concerns raised over a request from chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance that scientists were not properly consulted about eating out to help. He said Sir Patrick and Sir Chris had the opportunity to raise concerns at three meetings between the announcement of the scheme and its launch in August 2020.

“During three meetings this issue was not raised at all,” the Prime Minister said.

The investigation’s lead lawyer, Hugo Keith K.S. asked Mr Sunak about an interview he gave in August 2022 to the Spectator magazine.

In it, the Prime Minister said he was prohibited from discussing the “trade-offs” of the lockdown, such as the increasing backlog of the NHS and the huge economic damage.

Asked for comments, he said: “Hospitality, leisure tourism, retail, disproportionately employed people who were the most vulnerable in society: people on the lowest incomes, people on welfare, women, ethnic minorities, those who work part-time. So I think it was especially important from a social justice perspective to try to protect those jobs.”

He also used the hearing to say that one of the reasons the current “tax burden is higher than we would like” is because of the huge sums the government was forced to borrow while the restrictions were in place. The investigation also stated:

Sunak apologizes

Mr Sunak began his one-day inquiry in the same way as previous politicians – with an apology.

The Prime Minister, who received a cold reception outside the inquest from Covid mourners, said he was “deeply sorry” for “all those… who have suffered” during the pandemic “as a result of the actions taken”. .

He said he had “thought about this a lot over the last couple of years” and said it was important that the extensive investigation identified lessons that needed to be learned “so we can be better prepared in the future.”

Mr Sunak said: “It is in that spirit, and with the utmost respect for all those affected, that I am here today.”

No “conflicts” with health and economy

Mr Sunak denied he was describing a “clash” between public health and the economy during the pandemic.

He told Mr Keith he had never used the phraseology and made no apologies for his role in considering the possible financial implications of the measures. He said: “I think I saw my role as Chancellor of the Exchequer as making sure that the Prime Minister had the best advice, information and analysis regarding the economic impact or consequences of some of the decisions he had to make.

“I never described this as a clash between public health and the economy. I think that’s thinking about it too narrowly.”

Johnson wasn’t indecisive

The prime minister backed his former boss Boris Johnson and denied claims from other witnesses that the then prime minister was prone to “vacillation” and veering off course. Mr Sunak told the inquiry: “I don’t think any of these comments were shared with me at the time.”

And he expressed sympathy for Mr Johnson’s position as prime minister as he sought to navigate the competing interests of public health and finance. He said: “That’s why he had in many ways the impossible task of balancing all these very difficult things.”

Mr Sunak said decisions were often made after “vigorous debate”, adding: “These were incredibly important decisions, the likes of which no prime minister has made in decades, if ever, like this one.”

Nothing wrong with chatting with Boris

he condemned Mr Keith’s suggestions that the couple often discussed decision-making in private. Mr Sunak said “of course” the pair would have conversations given they are neighbors living and working in Downing Street.

But he insisted that all formal decisions and conversations were made at meetings that were recorded in minutes.

He said: “If you happen to be neighbours, it’s impossible not to see each other outside of a formal meeting, it’s just the practical reality of being neighbours, sharing a garden and living in the same building. So it will be strange not to talk about life, family, friends and work at the same time.”

Dominic Cummings, Downing Street’s combative former chief of staff, said it was “absurd” for Mr Keith to try to “assume anything dodgy” about the pair chatting at the end of the meeting. Mr Cummings wrote on social media: “The investigation continues to reach new lows.”

Ministers followed the science

Mr Sunak said the first lockdown decision in March 2020 was made based on scientific advice.

He repeated the argument that ministers had “followed the advice of scientists” during the Covid-19 crisis.

“My vivid recollection of those few weeks in March is that Sage’s advice was conveyed to the Government and the Prime Minister and the advice was implemented almost immediately, on the same day in most, if not all, cases during that period . ‘

He said the challenges posed by the pandemic are “unprecedented” and that there is a lack of reliable data to make early decisions.

Mr Sunak said he did not remember discussing the decision to close, but added: “I think we followed the advice of scientists. I agree that we were influenced and informed by what they told the government to do and when to do it.”

Too many people were working from home

There were concerns at the Treasury that the public had misunderstood the initial guidance on working from home, Mr Sunak admitted.

The government, seeking to ease restrictions, announced in May 2020 that people should work from home if they can, but should otherwise come to work.

Mr Sunak agreed with investigative lawyer Mr Keith that he was concerned that the public “did not get a clear enough understanding from the Government’s communications”, adding that “the messages (were) slightly lost”.

He said: “I don’t think there’s anything in particular we could do about it. It was an important moment as we approached the exit roadmap and the May plan and then tried to get this idea right. Scientific recommendations and modeling were based on the number of people who were working from home and others who were at work.

“What ended up happening was that those assumptions were essentially underestimated and there were fewer people on the job.”

Mr Keith acknowledged that “the evidence does not substantially support the assumption of the impact on infection rates” of the Eat Out to Help Out programme.

Professor Mark Woolhouse, a scientist involved with Sage, has already told the inquiry: “I doubt that the Covid-19 epidemic in the UK at the end of 2020 would have unfolded differently if eating out had not helped.”