Sunak Defends Furlough Scheme, Credits it with Preventing Widespread Unemployment

In a recent appearance before the public inquiry into the pandemic, Sunak acknowledged that the government was unable to save every job, but praised the scheme's success in preventing widespread unemployment. "It wasn't going to be possible to save every person's job," Sunak said, adding that the government was "successful in preventing mass unemployment." He also noted that the impact of the pandemic on employment was "considerably better than what anyone had forecast at the early stages of the pandemic." The furlough scheme was introduced in March 2020, as the UK government sought to mitigate the economic impact of the pandemic. Under the scheme, businesses were able to claim a portion of their employees' wages, with the government covering up to 80% of salaries. The scheme was initially intended to last for three months, but it was extended several times as the pandemic dragged on. Sunak's comments come as the public inquiry into the pandemic continues to examine the government's response to the crisis. The inquiry has heard testimony from a range of witnesses, including politicians, scientists, and business leaders. While some have praised the government's efforts to support businesses and employees, others have criticized the scheme for being too slow to respond to the crisis. The furlough scheme was widely credited with helping to prevent a wave of mass unemployment, which many had feared would occur as businesses shut down or reduced their operations. However, some critics have argued that the scheme was overly reliant on government support, and that it did not provide sufficient support for the self-employed or small businesses. The public inquiry is expected to continue its examination of the government's response to the pandemic in the coming weeks. In the meantime, the UK economy continues to recover from the pandemic, with unemployment rates slowly declining. However, the legacy of the furlough scheme remains a topic of debate, with some arguing that it was a necessary measure to prevent widespread unemployment, while others see it as a costly and inefficient use of government resources.