The questions Rishi Sunak will face at the Covid inquiry

Were they really ‘following the science’ in Downing Street during the pandemic? Sean O’Grady looks at what the inquiry lawyers will have in store for the prime minister

Sunak spent £800m on the Eat Out to Help Out scheme during the pandemic (PA)

As if Rishi Sunak didn’t have quite enough to worry about, he will spend his entire Monday at the Covid inquiry taking questions from various barristers, including Hugo Keith KC. The prime minister obviously played a key role during the pandemic, as he was chancellor of the Exchequer for most of it.

What did Sunak do during Covid?

He was promoted from chief secretary to the Treasury to chancellor on 13 February 2020, and so was in place just as the concerns about the Covid crisis were reaching a critical point. He won much praise for the packages of measures that the Treasury, with the Bank of England, put in place to support the economy during the emergency restrictions on economic activity; conventional borrowing limits were disregarded in what was treated as a wartime situation. For that, and his empathetic and competent manner, Sunak enjoyed a boost to his image. Critics say that the damage to the public finances wasn’t necessary because lockdowns were an overreaction – a view Sunak now seems to sympathise with. Indeed, despite bragging about what he did, Sunak said during his party leadership campaign in 2022 that he wouldn’t do the same thing again and would oppose any future pandemic lockdowns.

It has become apparent since the pandemic, especially in evidence given to the Covid inquiry, that the Treasury and Sunak put up some resistance to lockdown measures, on economic grounds. On the other hand, they spent £800m on the Eat Out to Help Out scheme. This was seen at the time as a bold initiative to boost the hard-hit hospitality sector, but has since raised questions about it spreading the disease at a critical point. Sunak also attended the birthday gathering for Boris Johnson, for which he was issued with a fixed penalty notice.

Sunak also stood accused during the crisis of not providing sufficient sick pay and financial support for those forced to self-isolate.

What questions will he need to answer?

There will be much focus on Eat Out to Help Out, and whether the Treasury and Sunak sought any medical or scientific advice about its efficacy or prospective risks. Chris Whitty, Jonathan Van-Tam and Patrick Vallance all say that they knew nothing about it before it was launched. Johnson stated in his witness statement that Whitty and Vallance “were properly consulted” but under cross-examination admitted that was only his assumption. Did Sunak seek advice, or did he too simply assume the expert guidance had been sought and was positive? And where’s the evidence of that? Moreover, why did the Treasury seek to exclude the experts and the health secretary at key points? Why is Sunak quoted as saying that the experts were the problem? Why also did the permanent secretary to the Treasury object to Eat Out to Help Out as a waste of taxpayers’ money, and require Sunak to formally “direct” him to implement it?

He might also be asked why £800m was spent on East Out to Help Out which lasted just over a month, but just £385m was spent on the self-isolation support scheme in total throughout its existence (around 18 months)?

The furlough scheme may have been generous, and expensive, but why wasn’t more done for those required to self-isolate under government rules? In particular, the Covid inquiry has already heard that, as chief medical officer, Whitty called in May 2020 for “an accessible offer of financial support” to help reduce the risk of “no adherence” to Covid rules. Yet according to Vallance, Sunak was responsible for “blocking all notion of paying people to isolate despite all the evidence that this will be needed.”

What about Johnson?

Sunak might well also be asked about the accusations that Johnson’s operation at No 10 was toxic and dysfunctional, about the role of Dominic Cummings (instrumental in making Sunak chancellor, replacing Sajid Javid), and whether the prime minister at the time was an indecisive “trolley”. Living and working in Downing Street means Sunak might be asked about Partygate. How Sunak speaks about his predecessor, and to what extent he blames him for mistakes, will be sensitive in internal party terms.

What about successes?

Sunak will be keen to stress that, to borrow a phrase, he got the big calls right – on the furlough scheme, Eat Out to Help Out, and the balance between public health and the long-term impact on public finances.

Was there a trade-off between public health and the economy?

This is debatable. Matt Hancock reminded us of this question in his testimony, arguing that there was no such trade-off in reality because, if lockdowns and restrictions were avoided, allowing the disease to spread exponentially, the lost output and long-term loss of working lives would be even more costly than furloughing people.

Will it make much political difference to Sunak?

Given everything else that’s gone wrong more recently, probably not much. As so often, the public will regard the furlough scheme as no more than they were due, and take the view that the government had no alternative other than to support the economy. Sunak won’t get much thanks for the good things he did, but plenty of criticism for ideas such as Eat Out to Help Out that, in hindsight, were unwise in both economic and public health terms. Far from “following the science”, it looks as if Sunak and the Treasury sometimes went out of their way to exclude the medical and scientific experts, and even the health secretary, from decision-making. That doesn’t accord with what Sunak was telling people at the time, or with his “reasonable guy” image.