More than 200,000 discounted meals were bought in Swindon through the Government’s month-long Eat Out to Help Out scheme during the summer, figures reveal.

For three days a week through August, people could buy a cut price meal at outlets that signed up to the scheme and save up to £10 per person.

The initiative, which saw people flock to pubs, restaurants and cafés across the UK, was largely hailed a success by the hospitality sector. It has since been claimed the scheme encouraged further spread of the coronavirus.

New data from HM Revenue and Customs shows around 242,000 cut price meals were claimed at 143 participating businesses in Swindon.

It meant diners saved £5.29 per meal on average.

Businesses in the area claimed back £1.3 million from the Government at an average of £9,000 per outlet.

They were among 6,041 cafés, restaurants and pubs to take part across the South West, and 59,981 across the UK as a whole.

But the HMRC data only covers businesses with fewer than 25 outlets, meaning the true figures may be much higher because many big-name restaurant chains took part.

More than 100 million discounted meals were eaten across the UK under the programme intended to boost the economy by encouraging consumers to dine out after months of being told to stay indoors.

A Treasury spokesman credited Eat Out to Help Out with protecting jobs around the country and bringing back 400,000 hospitality workers from furlough.

But research from the University of Warwick suggested the scheme may have contributed to between eight and 17 per cent of newly- detected Covid-19 clusters – a claim denied by the Treasury.

At the time, Dr Thiemo Fetzer, who led the research, said: “‘Eat Out to Help Out’ may in the end have been a false economy, one that subsidised the spread of the pandemic into autumn and contributed to the start of the second wave.”

The Treasury spokesman said its analysis of the HMRC figures confirms take-up of the Eat Out to Help scheme “does not correlate with incidence of Covid regionally – and indeed where it does the relationship is negative.”

But this analysis has not so far been published by the department.