Former chancellor George Osborne has rejected claims his austerity programme left the NHS in a “parlous state” ahead of the coronavirus pandemic.
Speaking at the official COVID-19 inquiry, Mr Osborne also suggested his cuts better prepared the UK to tackle the outbreak.
The former Conservative MP, who was chancellor in David Cameron’s government between 2010 and 2016, made the claims as he “completely” disputed allegations from medics and unions that his cuts left health and social care depleted.
Mr Osborne argued on Tuesday that the UK may not have had the financial scope to spend vast amounts to support the public through the crisis without austerity.
However, he conceded the Treasury should have planned economic measures such as the furlough scheme needed in the pandemic.
Ex-chief medical officer becomes tearful – COVID inquiry latest
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 first phase of the UK COVID-19 Inquiry examines whether proper preparations were made.
Mr Osborne argued it was key to ensure the economy was able to “flex in a crisis” after the “massive economic shock” of the 2008 financial crash.
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?”
Mr 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…”
Mr 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, Mr Osborne argues that his action “had a material and positive effect on the UK’s ability to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic”.
Mr Cameron, who gave evidence on Monday, had 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”.
Mr 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 that the population 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: “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 more:
COVID Inquiry: What is it and what’s it trying to find?
David Cameron heckled as he leaves COVID inquiry
What we learned from week 1 of the inquiry
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
But he accepted that “with hindsight” the Treasury should have developed a blueprint for such a health emergency.
TUC general 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 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”.
The minister, who has described himself as Mr 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 Liberal Democrat colleagues in coalition with the Tories in the “rather wide-ranging and unusual role”.
Sir Oliver said: “Actually there really ought to be a minister solely devoted to resilience at a senior level.”
Asked if anyone had ever had this role, he 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 Conservatives “cannot be trusted to protect the public from the emergencies of tomorrow”.
