Rishi Sunak would undoubtedly have been aware of scientists’ concerns about his “eat out to help out” scheme during the pandemic, according to Sir Patrick Vallance, contradicting the prime minister’s testimony to the Covid inquiry.
In potentially damaging evidence, Vallance, the UK government’s chief scientific advisor during the pandemic, stated that he would be “very surprised” if Sunak, who was then chancellor, had not been informed about objections to his plan to support the hospitality industry.
In his letter to the inquiry, Sunak claimed that he did not recall any concerns being raised about the scheme during ministerial meetings, despite growing worries that the discounted plan could contribute to the spread of the virus.
Based on an extract from Vallance’s contemporaneous diary, the inquiry also heard about a “shambolic” day on October 25, 2020, when the country was heading towards a second national lockdown.
The diary entry revealed that Boris Johnson wanted to allow the virus to spread, while his most senior advisor, Dominic Cummings, suggested that Sunak thought it was acceptable for people to die.
The extract read: “PM meeting – begins to argue for letting it all rip. Saying yes there will be more casualties but so be it – ‘they have had a good innings’,” before later stating: “DC says ‘Rishi thinks just let people die and that’s okay’. This all feels like a complete lack of leadership.”
The same entry also quoted Johnson as saying: “Most people who die have reached their time anyway.”
When questioned about the diary entry, Vallance told the inquiry that he was recording what must have been a “quite a shambolic day”.
Downing Street declined to comment on whether Sunak believed it was acceptable to “just let people die” during the pandemic, stating that it would be up to the prime minister to clarify his position during his testimony before the Covid Inquiry.
Further revelations from the pandemic diaries indicated that in July 2020, Sunak also sought to challenge the advice of scientists. In an economics-based meeting, Sunak allegedly stated, “it’s all about handling the scientists, not handling the virus.”
Vallance acknowledged that there were periods when the advice given by scientists was not well-received, necessitating increased efforts to ensure that the scientific evidence and advice were properly understood.
Vallance also revealed that Johnson sometimes struggled to grasp basic scientific concepts crucial to dealing with Covid, such as the effects of lockdown on waves of infection, and had to have them explained repeatedly.
Regarding Sunak’s “eat out to help out” scheme, which provided discounts to millions of people at restaurants and cafes during the summer of 2020, Vallance stated that he and other scientific advisors were not consulted before its launch by the Treasury.
“Up until that point, the message had been very clear, which is that interaction between different households and people you weren’t living with in an enclosed environment with many others was a high-risk activity. That policy completely reversed it,” Vallance explained.
“It is very difficult to see how it would not have had an effect on transmission and that would have been the advice that was given.”
During the inquiry, an extract from Sunak’s written witness statement was shown. Sunak is scheduled to appear in person next month. In his statement, he claimed that he did not recall any concerns being expressed about the scheme during ministerial discussions. These discussions included meetings attended by Vallance and Chris Whitty.
When asked about the accuracy of Sunak’s statement, Vallance said, “It would have been very obvious to anyone that this would inevitably cause an increase in transmission risk, and I think that would have been known by ministers.”
When questioned by the inquiry counsel, Andrew O’Connor, whether this would include Sunak, Vallance replied, “I can’t recall which meetings he was in, but I’d be very surprised if any minister didn’t understand that these openings carried risk.”
Regarding Johnson’s comprehension of scientific concepts, Vallance mentioned that the prime minister’s last study of science was at the age of 15 and that he “struggled with some of the concepts and we did need to repeat them.”
Vallance explained that even fundamental scientific ideas related to combating the virus, such as the impact of interventions like lockdowns on infection peaks, were challenging for Johnson to comprehend.
“He would look at the peaks of waves and infection and ask: ‘Are the interventions we’re making doing that or is this what would have happened anyway?'” Vallance said.
“And he did come back to that point, often. We had to explain to him the evidence that the interventions made a difference. It is true that at some point the peaks come down because public behavior changes. But the point was that these peaks were clearly being reduced by interventions.”
Other extracts from Vallance’s diary revealed similar indecisiveness from Johnson regarding a second lockdown, with Vallance indicating that the then prime minister was heavily influenced by the press.
Earlier in his testimony, Vallance stated that by mid-March 2020, just over a week before Johnson imposed the first lockdown, the data showed that Covid was spreading more widely and at a faster rate than expected. He added that it was clear that action should have been taken earlier.
An extract from Vallance’s statement indicated his key takeaway from that period: “The most important lesson that I learned and stated repeatedly from the first lockdown onwards in respect of the timing of interventions was that you had to go earlier than you would like, harder than you would like, and broader than you would like.”
The Guardian newspaper, which provided this report, appealed to its readers for support in continuing its independent and impactful journalism. They highlighted the importance of reporting like this for democracy, fairness, and demanding accountability from those in power. They emphasized their commitment to providing free access to quality news for everyone, believing in information equality and the power of information to inspire meaningful action.
