GEORGE Osborne has claimed that Tory austerity cuts better prepared the UK to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic – and rejected claims that the policy depleted the NHS.
The former Tory chancellor was probed on his policy decisions during his time in government and how they impacted on the UK’s preparedness ahead of the pandemic.
Osborne instead argued on Tuesday that the UK might not have had the financial scope to spend vast amounts of cash to support the public through the pandemic if the austerity programme had not been in place.
However, medics and unions have repeatedly said that the cuts to services made under Osborne left health and social care in a “parlous state”.
Osborne, who served as chancellor between 2010 and 2016 under then Tory prime minister David Cameron, did concede that the Treasury should have planned economic measures such as the furlough scheme, which became crucial during the pandemic.
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has argued that the “political choice” of austerity under Cameron left the UK “hugely exposed to the pandemic”.
And the British Medical Association (BMA) has claimed the cuts put the nation “severely on the back foot".
The first phase of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry is examining whether proper preparations were made.
Osborne argued that it was key to ensure that the economy after the “massive economic shock” of the 2008 financial crisis was able to “flex in a crisis”.
Inquiry barrister Kate Blackwell KC asked: “Do you agree, by the time Covid-19 hit, the consequences of austerity were a depleted health and social care capacity and rising inequality in the UK?”
Osborne replied: “Most certainly not, I completely reject that.
“I would say if we had not done that Britain would have been more exposed, not just to future things like the coronavirus pandemic, but indeed to the fiscal crisis which very rapidly followed in countries across Europe.”
Osborne said he needed to repair the “seriously impaired public finances”.
“If we had not had a clear plan to put the public finances on a sustainable path then Britain might have experienced a fiscal crisis, we would not have had the fiscal space to deal with the coronavirus pandemic when it hit,” he said.
In his written evidence, Osborne argued that his action “had a material and positive effect on the UK’s ability to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic”.
Cameron, who gave evidence on Monday, has already argued the cuts were “absolutely essential to get the British economy and British public finances back to health so you can cope with a future crisis”.
Osborne conceded that the Treasury did not plan for an extended lockdown, but questioned whether such a plan would have led to a better furlough scheme anyway.
“There was no assumption that you would mandate the population to stay at home for months and months on end so there was no planning for a lockdown,” he said.
Asked whose fault it was, he said that “I don’t think it’s particularly fair to apportion blame” when scientists were not “elevating” the threat of such a virus spreading rapidly.
But he accepted that “with hindsight” the Treasury should have developed a blueprint for such a health emergency.
TUC general secretary Paul Nowak accused Osborne of “trying to rewrite history and gaslight the British public”.
“Everyone can see the damage austerity did to the nation,” he said.
Earlier, former minister Sir Oliver Letwin told the inquiry that failing to appoint someone to have sole responsibility over planning for pandemics and other threats has been an “error”.
Letwin, who has described himself as Cameron’s “Mr Fix It”, said resilience only formed a “relatively small part” of his role, despite it being in his brief between 2011 and 2016.
Instead, he said he spent a lot of time on “endless discussions” with LibDem colleagues in coalition with the Tories in the “rather wide-ranging and unusual role”.
“Actually, there really ought to be a minister solely devoted to resilience at a senior level,” he said.
Asked if anyone had ever had this role, Letwin said: “There hasn’t as far as I’m aware, and I think that is an error.”
He expressed regret at following advice to focus on critical national infrastructure, which he described as “wildly under-resilient”, instead of pandemic flu, which he believed may have allowed him to identify “some other catastrophic pathogen” to prepare for.
Labour said the admissions were “too little, too late”, adding the Tories “cannot be trusted to protect the public from the emergencies of tomorrow”.
