Latest news with #EatOuttoHelpOut
Spectator
02-08-2025
- General
- Spectator
Was Eat Out to Help Out really such a bad idea?
Eat Out to Help Out, the government scheme aimed at encouraging people to return to restaurants during the pandemic, launched five years ago this week. From the outset, it came in for plenty of criticism. It was costly, controversial and possibly premature, its critics say. Bereaved families claim people died because of the scheme. These criticisms might be valid, but they've also obscured something else: the fact that, for many – especially young people – this policy didn't just bring food onto tables. It marked a return to normal life after weeks of lockdown. We queued. We booked. We ordered that second starter. For a few wonderful weeks, tables were full, pub gardens were loud, and weekday evenings took on the glow of Friday nights. It wasn't just about food. It was about re-entering the world. I didn't realise it at the time – no one did – but Eat Out to Help Out became, for many people, one of the few bright spots in 2020, a year defined by fear, isolation and loss. At the time, I was head of behavioural insight at HMRC and fed advice into the scheme's design. I don't know how influential it was, but I found it unusually exciting – not just because it was bold, but because it set out to change how people felt, not just their bank balance. It was a rare moment when policy engaged with perceptions, not just price points. And it worked — in ways we hadn't fully anticipated. What I noticed in that month wasn't just economic activity – it was emotional reanimation. People weren't just eating out. They were getting dressed again. Choosing where to sit. Seeing people across a table, not through a screen. It sounds small. But after months of lockdown, rules and rationed pleasure, it felt like momentum. We often talk about the long tail of the pandemic's effects on young people: the stalled careers, the missed milestones, the mental health struggles. It's worth remembering that, in a year of cancellations and constraints, this was the rare moment when they were told: go out. Be with friends. Rejoin the world. And they did. In just one month, over 160 million discounted meals were claimed – more than two per person across the UK. It wasn't just a treat. It was structure. Something to look forward to. Restaurants filled. So did diaries. We started planning again. Sales in hair styling products rose 17 per cent, hair removal products 11 per cent. People weren't just leaving the house – they were preparing to be seen. For many who worked in hospitality – also disproportionately young – EOHO didn't just bring them joy as customers, but employment as staff. They were needed again. The scheme, as I've said, had its critics. There are serious concerns about its role in the second wave of Covid. Some saw it as wasteful – a subsidy for those who would have eaten out anyway. Both perspectives deserve reflection. But let's not ignore the fact that this scheme gave people something more than economic support. It gave them a reason to leave the house, to put on proper shoes again. None of this means government should subsidise people's meals out during normal times. But it does mean we should pay attention to the emotional reverberations of policy — not just economic outcomes. For a moment, Eat Out to Help Out made people feel like things were turning a corner. As we reflect on the long tail of youth disaffection today, it's worth asking: what if more policies aimed not just to recover — but to rekindle? August 2020 opened up a tantalising possibility.
Yahoo
25-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
On this day in 2020: York venues join Eat Out to Help Out scheme
On this day in 2020, the York Press reported that more restaurants and cafés had joined the Eat Out to Help Out scheme. The government initiative offered diners up to 50 per cent off food and non-alcoholic drinks, capped at £10 per person, every Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday throughout August. Participating venues in York included Fancy Hanks in Goodramgate, The Cut and Craft, Lucia, and The Three Cups Inn in Stamford Bridge. The Press had previously confirmed other participants. These included Hungate Reading Café, Rowntree Park Reading Café, The Botanist, and The Lamb and Lion.
The National
03-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
How Reform UK's plans could dismantle the welfare state
According to a report by The Independent, recent YouGov polls suggest that 38% of working-class voters support Reform – despite evidence that the party's policies could actually stand to make them worse off. We looked at four key policy areas – the NHS, free school meals, benefits and employment – and found that, in spite of promoting themselves as the party of the people, Reform have consistently campaigned on policies or voted against legislation that would keep what's left of the welfare state intact. NHS Nigel Farage has hit back at claims from Labour that under a Reform government, the NHS would no longer be free of charge. An independent fact checker found that Labour had quoted Farage out of context. The right-wing leader has never outright said that his party would fully scrap or privatise the healthcare system and that their policy is 'to always keep the NHS free at the point of use'. However, Farage has been clear that he doesn't want the NHS to be publicly funded. The party has also proposed a range of measures including expanding private provision, bringing in tax relief on private healthcare, bringing in weekend operating hours, and fining patients for missed appointments. Their plan also leans heavily on expanding private provision – offering tax relief on private healthcare and introducing NHS-funded vouchers for private treatment when NHS wait times are too long. READ MORE: Labour partially U-turn on benefits cuts in bid to win over rebel MPs Free school meals Free school meals are a devolved issue, but let's take a look at what Reform are proposing for England. In 2020, Farage criticised the Conservative government for voting against providing free school meals for pupils from low income families during school holidays, branding the move 'mean' and 'wrong'. If the government can subsidise Eat Out to Help Out, not being seen to give poor kids lunch in the school holidays looks mean and is wrong. — Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) October 22, 2020 However, Reform's official policy documents contain zero proposals regarding the provision of free school meals. Farage also abstained from voting on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill at its third reading. The bill proposes that primary schools in England must provide free breakfast for pupils and limit the number of branded items required for uniforms to support families and reduce inequality around hunger and clothing. Reform's four other MPs (excluding Rupert Lowe, who has been suspended by the party) voted on the bill as follows: Lee Anderson: No James McMurdock: No Richard Tice: No Sarah Pochin: No available information The provision of free school meals helps improve pupils' concentration in the classroom, as well as helping to tackle poverty, food insecurity and improving children's overall wellbeing. The Scottish Government, on the other hand, recently expanded eligibility for free school meals, as well as wiping millions of pounds worth of lunch debts for pupils across the country in a bid to tackle the cost of living crisis. (Image: Supplied)Scottish Greens MSP Ross Greer said: 'Children can't learn if they are hungry and we know that free meals can have a transformative impact on their success at school.' Benefits Reform UK wants to overhaul the 'bloated' benefits system to make work more attractive and stop more people falling into the 'benefits trap'. Their 2024 manifesto states the party would raise the income tax threshold to £20,000 and focus on getting up to 2 million people, especially 16–34-year-olds, back into work. Jobseekers would have to accept a job after two offers and find employment within four months or risk benefit sanctions. Disability benefit assessments would be face-to-face with medical proof required, though exemptions would apply for severe cases. They'd also push to end so-called 'health tourism' by restricting access to benefits for new arrivals until they've lived and worked in the UK for five years. READ MORE: No changes to council tax 'in this decade', says Scottish Government Reform's benefit proposals risk punishing the vulnerable rather than addressing the root causes of unemployment. Raising the income tax threshold may help some, but it doesn't address those whose wages are too low to meet the bar in the first place, and does little to improve job quality or security. Forcing people to accept jobs under threat of losing benefits – the 'two-strike' policy – risks pushing individuals into unsuitable, low-paid, or exploitative work. Disability campaigners have also long criticised the dehumanising benefits assessments, especially for those with hidden or fluctuating conditions. Increasing the number of assessments required to receive payments is likely to do nothing but cause distress and further alienate disabled people. As it stands, and unlike myths peddled by the far-right, asylum seekers in the UK are not actually entitled to any mainstream benefits such as Universal Credit. Instead, they are granted £49.18 per person, per week, to cover essentials like food and clothing. If an asylum seeker is placed in accommodation that provides food, the weekly payment is then slashed to £9.95 per person. However, Reform MPs were largely against Labour's welfare cuts. Farage, Tice, McMurdock and Pochin all voted no at the "chaotic" second reading of the bill, whilst Anderson did not vote at all. Employment Outside overhauls to the benefits system, Reform's proposed employment policies are mostly based on removing EU regulations. Their manifesto mentions '[slashing] red tape to boost industry', ie scrapping EU based-employment laws and making it easier for businesses to adopt fire and hire staff members. UK employment law still draws largely from key EU legislations, like the Working Time Regulations 1998 act, TUPE and the Equality Act 2010. Working Time Regulations maintains EU standards on maximum weekly hours (48 hours), rest breaks and annual leave, while TUPE protects employees during business transfers. The Equality Act enforces anti-discrimination and sexual harassment policies in the workplace. READ MORE: 'Bizarre': Question Time called out as Reform councillor joins Scottish panel If Reform were to scrap these policies entirely, there is a risk of gutting workers' rights. Protections like paid leave, rest breaks and safeguards against unfair dismissal could be weakened. Making it 'easier to hire and fire' may sound pro-business, but in reality it could lead to job insecurity, longer hours, and reduced protections for vulnerable workers. Stripping back anti-discrimination laws rooted in EU rules, like the Equality Act 2010, could further erode workplace fairness. Additionally, for a party which claims to be for the people, their voting records on employment rights suggest otherwise. At the third reading for the Employment Rights Bill, Reform MPs voted as follows: Nigel Farage: No Lee Anderson: Didn't vote James McMurdock: Didn't vote Richard Tice: Didn't vote Sarah Pochin: No information available When asked by ITV about youth unemployment, Farage said: 'There's a lot of young people not working who could be. It's almost as if the culture's gone wrong.' The Reform leader attributed the number of youngsters out of work to 17-and-18-year-olds not being pushed to work, while failing to cite rising retirement ages, gaps between education and employment, a lack of local jobs and health, work experience and education inequalities caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The party has provided no substantial pathways to decreasing the number of unemployed young people, other than vague promises to 'get more young people into farming', recruiting 30,000 for the armed forces and taxing foreign workers to pay for undefined apprenticeships.
Daily Mirror
01-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mirror
Full cost of failed pandemic- PPE finally revealed after major fraud probe
The Covid counter-fraud commissioner uncovered the £1.4billion figure in the first phase of his investigation into wasteful Tory spending during the Covid-19 pandemic Failed pandemic-era PPE contracts cost the British taxpayer £1.4billion. The Covid counter-fraud commissioner uncovered the figure in the first phase of his probe into wasteful Tory spending during the pandemic. Some £762million is unlikely to ever be recovered, as the Sunday Mirror revealed. These failures saw substandard PPE, including gowns, masks and visors, not inspected for two years, meaning public money could no longer be recouped. Most of the wasted money went on surgical gowns, with more than half (52%) of them being non-compliant. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is now urgently trying to claw back £468million that could still be recovered, which she wants to reinvest in public services and local communities. The next phase of Tom Hayhoe's investigation will look into fraud and error in other pandemic spending programmes such as furlough, bounce-back loans, Business Support Grants and Rishi Sunak 's Eat Out to Help Out scheme. Mr Hayhoe's final report is due to conclude in December. Recovery action has so far resulted in £182million being returned to the public purse, with some PPE suppliers having been referred to the National Crime Agency for suspected fraud. Ms Reeves said: 'The country is still paying the price for the reckless handling of Covid contracts which saw taxpayer pounds wasted and criminals profit from the pandemic. This investigation and plan to recover public money underlines our commitment to ensure that every penny spent during the pandemic is fully accounted for.' The Chancellor confirmed her Covid fraud crackdown at Labour 's annual conference last September. At the time, she said: 'I won't turn a blind eye to rip-off artists and fraudsters. 'I won't turn a blind eye to those who used a national emergency to line their own pockets. I won't let them get away with it. That money belongs in our police, it belongs in our health service, and it belongs in our schools.' In December, she tasked Mr Hayhoe with the job of trying to claw back lost money. The Tory Government has always insisted that it was operating in a crisis, with global PPE shortages driving up prices for kit that was essential for frontline workers. Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock told the Covid Inquiry in March: "I have been subject to enormous amounts of conspiracy theories about what went on here, when in fact what happened was so many people working as hard as they could to save lives, and they bought more PPE as a result. And therefore people are alive who would otherwise be dead."
Daily Mirror
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Covid PPE left gathering dust by Tory failings cost taxpayer £762million
Boris Johnson's Government panic ordered mountains of protective kit as the pandemic took hold, which was piled up in shipping containers as storage facilities were overwhelmed Tory failure to check the viability of PPE for up to two years has cost the taxpayer £762million, the Mirror can reveal. Boris Johnson's Government panic ordered mountains of protective kit as the pandemic took hold, which was piled up in shipping containers as storage facilities were overwhelmed. But long delays on checking the surplus surgical gowns, masks and visors meant that warranties had expired by the time the faulty PPE was found. This means that taxpayers' cash cannot be recovered through the courts and must be written off. The failure has been uncovered as part of a year-long probe by Covid counter-fraud commissioner Tom Hayhoe. Chancellor Rachel Reeves tasked him in December with trying to claw back public money lost to fraud and waste during the pandemic. READ MORE: Rachel Reeves to splash billions of pounds in North and Midlands under major rule change His first challenge was to review £8.7billion of Covid PPE that then had to be written off the government's books. Department of Health accounts revealed in 2022 that £673 million worth of equipment was completely unusable, and £750 million was wasted items that were not used before their expiry date. MPs were told that the Government planned to burn mountains of unusable gear. Nearly £2.6 billion was spent on 'items not suitable for use in the NHS" but could be sold or given to charities. The remaining stock plummeted in value because demand for PPE had dropped. A Treasury source said: "The Chancellor has been clear that she wants this money - that belongs to the British people, back in our public services. "Tom Hayhoe is gripping the carnival of waste that we saw under the Tories and has already uncovered millions of taxpayer pounds wasted on PPE that was left to gather dust. "Unlike the Tories, Labour won't let fraudsters who sought to profit off the back of a national emergency line their pockets." The commissioner's final report will be published later in December, which will cover waste and fraud linked to PPE, the furlough scheme, bounce-back loans, business support grants and Rishi Sunak's Eat Out to Help Out. His initial work on PPE waste was contained in an interim report sent to the Chancellor. The National Crime Agency (NCA) is separately probing possible criminal offences committed in the PPE procurement system. Mr Hayhoe is also believed to be looking at whether cash can be recouped from £674million in contracts that the Tories had written off. The award of lucrative contracts during the pandemic attracted controversy. PPE Medpro, a firm linked to peer Baroness Michelle Mone and her husband Doug Barowman, was awarded government contracts worth more than £200million through a so-called VIP lane that allowed MPs, officials and ministers to make referrals. The Government and PPE Medpro are locked in a legal battle over a contract to supply gowns, with a High Court trial due to begin in June. Mr Barrowman previously accused the Government of trying to "scapegoat" the couple for its own failings. The Tory Government has always maintained that it was operating in a crisis, with global PPE shortages driving up prices for kit that was essential for frontline workers. Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock told the Covid Inquiry in March: "I have been subject to enormous amounts of conspiracy theories about what went on here, when in fact what happened was so many people working as hard as they could to save lives, and they bought more PPE as a result. And therefore people are alive who would otherwise be dead."
