COVID inquiry: George Osborne rejects claims his austerity programme left NHS in ‘parlous state’ forward of pandemic

Former chancellor George Osborne has rejected claims his austerity programme left the NHS in a “parlous state” forward of the coronavirus pandemic.

Speaking on the official COVID-19 inquiry, Mr Osborne additionally recommended his cuts higher ready the UK to deal with the outbreak.

The former Conservative MP, who was chancellor in David Cameron’s authorities between 2010 and 2016, made the claims as he “completely” disputed allegations from medics and unions that his cuts left well being and social care depleted.

Mr Osborne argued on Tuesday that the UK could not have had the monetary scope to spend huge quantities to help the general public by way of the disaster with out austerity.

However, he conceded the Treasury ought to have deliberate financial measures such because the furlough scheme wanted within the pandemic.

Ex-chief medical officer turns into tearful – COVID inquiry newest

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has argued the “political choice” of austerity when Mr Cameron was prime minister left the UK “hugely exposed to the pandemic”.

Meanwhile, the British Medical Association has claimed the cuts put the nation “severely on the back foot” as the primary part of the UK COVID-19 Inquiry examines whether or not correct preparations have been made.

Mr Osborne argued it was key to make sure the economic system was in a position to “flex in a crisis” after the “massive economic shock” of the 2008 monetary crash.

Inquiry barrister Kate Blackwell KC requested: “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?”

Mr Osborne replied: “Most certainly not, I completely reject that.

“I’d say if we had not completed that Britain would have been extra uncovered, not simply to future issues just like the coronavirus pandemic, however certainly to the fiscal disaster which very quickly adopted in international locations throughout Europe…”

Mr Osborne mentioned he wanted to restore 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 mentioned.

In his written proof, Mr Osborne argues that his motion “had a material and positive effect on the UK’s ability to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic”.

Mr Cameron, who gave proof on Monday, had already argued the cuts have been “absolutely essential to get the British economy and British public finances back to health so you can cope with a future crisis”.

Mr Osborne conceded that the Treasury didn’t plan for an prolonged lockdown, however questioned whether or not such a plan would have led to a greater furlough scheme anyway.

“There was no assumption that you would mandate that the population stay at home for months and months on end so there was no planning for a lockdown,” he mentioned.

Asked whose fault it was, he mentioned: “I don’t think it’s particularly fair to apportion blame when scientists were not elevating the threat of such a virus spreading rapidly.”

Read extra:
COVID Inquiry: What is it and what’s it looking for?
David Cameron heckled as he leaves COVID inquiry
What we realized from week 1 of the inquiry

But he accepted that “with hindsight” the Treasury ought to have developed a blueprint for such a well being emergency.

TUC basic secretary Paul Nowak accused Mr Osborne of “trying to rewrite history and gaslight the British public”.

“Everyone can see the damage austerity did to the nation,” he mentioned.

Earlier, former minister Sir Oliver Letwin advised the inquiry that failing to nominate somebody to have sole duty over planning for pandemics and different threats has been an “error”.

The minister, who has described himself as Mr Cameron’s “Mr Fix It”, mentioned resilience solely fashioned a “relatively small part” of his function, regardless of it being in his temporary between 2011 and 2016.

Instead he mentioned he spent a number of time on “endless discussions” with Liberal Democrat colleagues in coalition with the Tories within the “rather wide-ranging and unusual role”.

Sir Oliver mentioned: “Actually there really ought to be a minister solely devoted to resilience at a senior level.”

Asked if anybody had ever had this function, he mentioned: “There hasn’t as far as I’m aware, and I think that is an error.”

He expressed remorse at following recommendation to concentrate on vital nationwide infrastructure, which he described as “wildly under-resilient”, as an alternative of pandemic flu, which he believed could have allowed him to determine “some other catastrophic pathogen” to arrange for.

Labour mentioned the admissions have been “too little, too late”, including the Conservatives “cannot be trusted to protect the public from the emergencies of tomorrow”.