George Osborne has rejected claims his austerity programme whereas chancellor depleted the NHS saying his financial savings higher ready Britain to deal with the coronavirus pandemic.

The Conservative former MP “completely” disputed the allegations on the official UK Covid-19 Inquiry from medics and unions that his cuts left well being and social care in a “parlous state”.

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

The chancellor between 2010 and 2016 conceded that his Treasury ought to have deliberate financial measures such because the furlough scheme wanted throughout the pandemic.

READ MORE: Failure to bring in ban on junk food ads 'very disappointing'

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has advised the inquiry that the “political choice” of austerity underneath prime minister David Cameron left the UK “hugely exposed to the pandemic”.

The British Medical Association has argued 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 that it was key to make sure that the economic system after the “massive economic shock” of the 2008 monetary disaster was capable of “flex in a crisis”.

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 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 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, has already argued the cuts have been “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 to 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 that “I don’t think it’s particularly fair to apportion blame” when scientists weren't “elevating” risk of such a virus spreading quickly”.

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

Earlier, former minister Sir Oliver Letwin advised the inquiry that failing to nominate somebody to have sole accountability 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 plenty 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 regret at following advice to focus on critical national infrastructure, which he described as “wildly under-resilient”, as a substitute of pandemic flu, which he believed could have allowed him to establish “some other catastrophic pathogen” to organize 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”.