Tracey

Rishi Sunak’s evidence exposes continued denial of the excluded Rishi Sunak gave evidence to the Covid Inquiry on Monday 15 December and Tuesday 16 December, reflecting on his time as chancellor during the pandemic. Across two days of testimony, he repeatedly defended the Treasury’s actions while once again failing to acknowledge the scale of exclusion caused by government policy. Throughout his evidence Sunak spoke at length about the speed and size of the economic response, frequently returning to the furlough scheme and business support packages as proof that the government acted decisively. What was striking was not only what he said, but what he continued to ignore. From the earliest days of the pandemic, ExcludedUK repeatedly warned Sunak and the Treasury that millions of people were falling through the cracks. These were not small gaps but vast chasms. Newly self employed people, freelancers, PAYE workers with mixed incomes, company directors paid through dividends, people returning from parental leave or illness, and many others were left with no income at all. These warnings were made clearly, consistently and publicly. They were ignored. Despite this, Sunak told the inquiry that schemes were designed as well as possible within constraints, and that difficult trade offs had to be made. What he did not acknowledge was that the government made a conscious decision to do nothing for those excluded. There were options available. Partial grants, hardship payments or even temporary basic income style support were all proposed. Instead of doing something imperfect, the Treasury chose to do absolutely nothing. Sunak again referred to Bounce Back Loans as part of the support offered, repeating a familiar line that excluded people had access to loans if grants were not available. This claim continues to misrepresent reality. Bounce Back Loans were not an option for many of those excluded because eligibility required businesses to have been trading for at least two years. Large numbers of the newly self employed and those who had changed working patterns shortly before the pandemic did not meet this criterion. Others quite reasonably refused to take on debt simply to survive, especially when they had lost all income through no fault of their own. Loans are not income replacement. Presenting them as an alternative to grants ignores both the eligibility rules and the ethical problem of forcing people into debt while their peers received non repayable support. Sunak also made statements implying that he had engaged with ExcludedUK during the pandemic. This is not borne out by the facts. ExcludedUK repeatedly requested meetings and meaningful engagement. No such meeting with Sunak took place. Correspondence was ignored or met with generic responses from officials. To suggest otherwise is misleading and avoids accountability for deliberate political choices. A recurring theme in Sunak’s evidence was that the government acted in good faith and under immense pressure. While pressure was real, accountability matters. The exclusion of millions was not an unintended oversight that was quickly corrected. It was a known problem that was raised repeatedly and consciously left unresolved. By continuing to frame the pandemic response as a success story with minor imperfections, Sunak fails to take responsibility for the harm caused to those abandoned by policy. Many lost homes, savings, careers and mental health. Some are still dealing with the consequences today. The Covid Inquiry exists to uncover the truth, not to recycle well rehearsed defences. Sunak’s evidence so far suggests a continued refusal to acknowledge the human cost of exclusion, and a determination to rewrite history rather than confront it. ExcludedUK will continue to ensure that the voices of those ignored during the pandemic are heard, whether or not those responsible are willing to listen. You can watch the recording of the ExcludedUK members who took part in the Module 9 Impact Film here: youtu.be/IgZZQ2r3Bhs?si=vjwI… #ExcludedUK