Covid inquiry: the questions David Cameron and George Osborne must answer

  • Austerity decimated services that were essential in the pandemic and pushed millions into poverty
  • As the architects of austerity, Cameron and Osborne must explain why they ignored warnings about its impact on the UK’s resilience and preparedness, says the TUC

With David Cameron and George Osborne taking the stand at the Covid inquiry today (Monday) and tomorrow, the nation needs answers on why they chose to cut vital services that were then vital for the pandemic response, says the TUC.

Austerity since 2010

Cameron and Osborne held office as Prime Minister and Chancellor from May 2010 to July 2016, during which time deep cuts were made to public services, public sector pay and social security.

This harmed four key pillars of pandemic preparedness, as covered in a recent TUC report:

  1. Safe staffing levels in public services
  1. Public service capacity and resources
  1. A strong safety net through the social security system
  1. Robust health and safety protections at work

 

While the report covers the period from 2010 to 2020, the greater part of the damage was done from 2010 to 2016.

For example, between 2010 and 2016 the real value of typical nurse’s annual pay was cut by £2,400 based on CPI inflation and £3,800 based on RPI inflation. The challenges this posed for recruitment and retention meant that when the pandemic hit there were 44,000 nursing vacancies in NHS England – equivalent to 12% of the nursing workforce.

Economic failure from 2010 to 2016

Cameron and Osborne claimed that funding cuts would put the public finances on a stable footing and help create strong economic growth. This was disputed by the TUC and many others at the time on the grounds that:

  • Borrowing was sustainable, as the Treasury could access long-term loans at low rates of interest;
  • Cuts would reduce economic demand, which would hold back growth and restrict revenue flowing into the Treasury; and
  • Cuts would leave important social and economic needs unmet, creating a long-term drag on economic growth and productivity.

By 2016, these concerns had been realised. Economic growth had been much slower than the forecast George Osborne presented in his 2010 budget. This meant less revenue, so he had borrowed £200 billion more than he first planned. And the UK had experienced its slowest recovery from an economic downturn in more than a century – including the Great Depression.

The TUC says that the UK paid multiple costs for austerity. It not only decimated public services, but also weakened the economy, led to higher public debt, pushed millions of people into poverty, and led to the worst pay crisis for two centuries.

Questions for David Cameron and George Osborne to answer

The TUC says that working people and the public need honest answers from David Cameron and George Osborne about the choices they made to cut services and support that are vital to preparedness and resilience. In particular:

  1. Failure to act on warnings: Why did they not act on the warnings of experts, including health experts, disaster planners, economists and workplace representatives on the harm being done by austerity and how it was weakening the UK’s resilience in case of a national emergency?
  2. Risks from pay cuts and understaffing: What consideration did they give to the risks of a staffing crisis in the NHS and social care due to real pay cuts? Why did they not have a workforce strategy that included capacity for dealing with national emergencies?
  3. Risks from underfunded and overstretched public services: What consideration did they give to the impacts of cuts to public services such as the schools, fire services, social care and public transport on preparedness for a national emergency and civil contingencies?
  4. Risks from decimating health and safety enforcement and public health: What consideration did they give to the impacts of cuts to the Health and Safety Executive and public health budgets on enforcement of rules and protections in workplaces, and the tracking and tracing of infections, in the event of a pandemic?
  5. Risk from social security cuts and greater poverty: When making social security cuts, what consideration did they give to poverty and health outcomes, including increased exposure and transmission, and greater vulnerability and susceptibility to serious illness, in the event of a pandemic?

TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said:

“David Cameron and George Osborne have serious questions to answer.

“Make no mistake, austerity was a political choice – and one that left the UK hugely exposed to the pandemic.

“Their policies weakened the foundations of our society by hollowing out our public services and shredding our safety net.

“Cameron and Osborne imposed brutal – and unnecessary – spending cuts in the face of widespread opposition and warnings from experts.

“And for what? They spectacularly failed to deliver on their promises of stable public finances and strong economic growth.

“Many other countries took a different approach – protecting public services and using public investment to achieve a stronger economies and fairer societies. If the UK had followed the same path, we would have been much better prepared when the pandemic hit.”