Former Chancellor George Osborne took questions at the Covid Inquiry just before lunch. Here's a recap of what he said:

• Osborne began by expressing "heartfelt sympathy to all those who lost a loved one during the pandemic"

• He said the Treasury could not be held directly responsible for the government’s unpreparedness during the pandemic, but said it should have been asked about pandemic preparedness
• Osborne said the Treasury did not plan for the lockdown, telling the inquiry there was "no assumption that you would ask the population to stay at home"

• He said China gave the world the idea of lockdowns, and that overwhelmed hospitals in Italy convinced Western governments that a lockdown was required
• He told the inquiry that Brexit took resources away from risk planning
• Osborne rejected the suggestion that austerity measures imposed during his time in office had depleted health and social care capacity in the UK by the time the pandemic struck
• Echoing David Cameron yesterday, he robustly defended his economic policies of reduced government spending in 2010 – during which cuts were introduced in welfare spending, school building programs, local government, police, courts and prisons

Osborne's answers were expected and revealingpublished at 13:56 British Summer Time 20 June 2023

13:56 BST 20 June 2023

Ben Wright
Political correspondent

George Osborne was prepared for the charge: That the austerity chancellor had left public services and the health of the poorest, especially the vulnerable, to the impact of Covid.

His answers were both expected and revealing.

He defended his policy choices - insisting NHS spending was protected while other areas were cut.

He said there was no alternative to austerity after the financial crash - still a strongly contested claim.

When Osborne said his plan for repairing public finances had left the UK in a stronger position to handle the pandemic, he was the politician defending his record.

But there was also the candour of an ex-politician about the difficulty of political choices.

Of course public services could have more cash, he said, if a government is prepared to borrow more or tell people to pay more tax.

Of course the social care system in England could be sorted out if people paid more tax or sold their homes - a choice Osborne said had been ducked by the political system for 20 years.

The public, he suggested, should be a witness at this inquiry too.

Prof Dame Sally Davies, England's former chief medical officer from 2010 to 2019, will be taking questions when the inquiry returns at 14:00 BST.

Prof Davies specialises in the treatment of diseases of blood and bone marrow.

In 2015, she asked health experts whether the country should practice for a coronavirus outbreak, but she was assured it would never reach the UK in large numbers.

Public Health England has denied this claim.

In 2020, Davies told the Daily Telegraph that the country was not as well prepared as it should have been.

She's expected to highlight flaws in the planning and preparedness for the pandemic later.

Letwin's insights into mechanics of government fascinatingpublished at 13:29 British Summer Time 20 June 2023

13:29 BST 20 June 2023

Hugh Pym
Health editor

This morning we heard from Sir Oliver Letwin, who gave some fascinating insights into the mechanics of government and the culture in Whitehall.

He said he had been reassured that plans to tackle a possible flu pandemic were under control so he didn’t inquire further.

He said it was absurd to think that with no specialist knowledge of science he would be able to counteract experts. But he acknowledged that as an “amateur” he could still have asked questions.

By the end of his term in office he said he had started asking key people in different sectors what was really going on rather than relying on documents and plans.

He then talked about the “revolving door” in Whitehall with ministers and civil servants moving frequently between jobs.

He argued that some officials knew less than him as they hadn’t been in the post long enough – it was critical to leave people to gain experience in their posts.

And just before the break for lunch, the final question from Blackwell to Osborne centred on the "consequences of failing to plan".

She brought up a review from April 2022 which said there was a significant gap in the UK's assessment of pandemic risk, and asked Osborne if he agrees that economic risk assessment for pandemics must be updated to focus on a broader range of impacts.

Osborne said he absolutely does agree, and suspects civil servants in the Treasury have already updated it for future effects of Covid variants that don't have vaccines.

Blackwell responded: "I'm sure the inquiry will be told whether these plans are now in practice. If that's right Mr Osborne, it's a shame it wasn't done before, isn't it?"

Osborne repeated that governments in the Western world weren't prepared for a pandemic that would cause months of lockdown and it's unfortunate no one did plan for this.

We have reached the end of the morning's questions and Covid inquiry Chair Baroness Hallett has called a recess.

So far, Oliver Letwin and George Osborne have been questioned on decisions made in government in relation to pandemic planning.

We expect the inquiry to resume around 14:00 BST.

Stay with us for analysis while we wait.

Blackwell is putting a statement from England's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, to Osborne.

Sir Chris said there may be a need to look at operational issues and the cost effectiveness of particular interventions. Health economics may be relevant, he said.

Asked if he agrees that there needs to be joined-up thinking between the science and the economy, Osborne says "yes, absolutely".

But he continues, "it's not just the health impacts." He thinks the government wrestled with the impact on businesses, education and criminal justice.

Blackwell says the inquiry heard from Professor Clare Bambra and Professor Sir Michael Marmot, who said austerity since 2010 was likely to be the cause of adverse changes and health inequality in the UK.

Osborne is asked if government policy had an affect on health and social care, which meant those in the worst situations were disproportionately affected when Covid hit, and that it was predictable and should've been part of government planning.

"I just completely reject that," Osborne says.

"Britain had a huge economic crash... it would have been worse had we not tried to address the risks to public finances that would've led to a fiscal crisis with less funding to these services."

Matt Cole
Political reporter, at the Covid inquiry

George Osborne has told the official Covid Inquiry that he “completely” rejects the suggestion that his austerity policy lead to depleted health and social care capacity and rising inequality in the UK (ahead of the pandemic).

He said it is not surprising that following the 2008 economic crash there was an impact on poverty and unemployment.

But he said had we not had austerity, the UK would have been much more exposed to the coronavirus pandemic.

He said “if we’d not had a clear plan to put Britain on a sustainable path we would not have had the fiscal space to deal with the coronavirus pandemic when it hit seven years later.”

Blackwell reads a statement from current Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, who was health secretary between 2012 and 2018, about how the NHS was struggling in many aspects.

She asks if he accepts that during his time in the government, does he accept that the funding for the NHS "simply wasn't enough."

"No, I don't accept that," he says.

"What I accept is that you could spend more money on the NHS... but you have to make a calculation balancing the resources each of those services get and the central calculation which every household has to make is what can we actually afford.

"I think we prioritised health."

He also makes the point that in 2010 they told the people what they planned to do with spending, and again in 2015, "and on both cases the public put their confidence in us."

"I don't think the public were misled about what the government would do."

A slide is shown on screen of a witness statement from a doctor who said pressures on health services in England was compromised by austerity politics.

It says minsters had promised to ring fence the public health budget for local authorities, but a cut of £200m in 2015 was followed by further reductions over the next five years.

Osborne is asked for his response.

He says the decision to transfer public health from NHS to local health was a good thing and there's "no one arguing it should be returned to the NHS".

He says over time local authorities have less discretion on how to spend money because several aspects are ring-fenced.

He says local government has its own resources and can raise its own taxes.

He adds money is not the solution to all problems and highlights his introduction of the sugar tax, and says smoking reduced during the Cameron government.

Blackwell is now showing a report by an independent think-tank, the Institute for Government.

It looks at how fit were public services for coronavirus and Blackwell says it is based on extensive research, data and interviews.

The report shows how before the crisis began, public services had seen reduced access, longer waiting times, missed targets, dissatisfaction and notably GPs and hospitals were missing almost all routine targets.

The report blames the government for consistently underspending its capital budgets.

Blackwell focuses on the state of the health services, "is that picture something that you recognise?"

Osborne says no, because by the time he left office there were more doctors, nurses and constant public satisfaction.

"I'd make a general observation, if you put all this together, the health service, the criminal justice system, the education system, the social care system... that is public spending. You can't just say 'well we'd like public spending to be higher' without then explaining where you're going to get the money from."

He says this is the chancellor's job, to balance services wanting more money, plus the impact of borrowing more money and the constraints on the general population.

Much like yesterday, it’s expected that a lot of today’s hearing will focus on the policy of austerity implemented by David Cameron and George Osborne during their time in office together.

Cameron committed to reducing government spending in 2010, implementing what he called “the age of austerity”.

Cuts were introduced in welfare spending, school building programs, local government, police, courts and prisons, overseen by Osborne as his role as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Various campaign groups have released reports showing the disproportionate impact the policy had on groups including women, children, people of colour and pensioners.

A key focus today will be on the NHS.

A report prepared jointly by Prof Sir Michael Marmot, director of University College London's Institute of Health Equity, and Prof Clare Bambra, an expert in public health from Newcastle University, said austerity policies affected the health of the nation in the lead up to the pandemic.

Today, we will likely hear further evidence about whether austerity-era decisions left the UK unprepared for a pandemic.

A real blast from the pastpublished at 12:44 British Summer Time 20 June 2023

12:44 BST 20 June 2023

Ellie Price
News correspondent

The line of questioning so far for George Osborne has been on the specifics of whether the Treasury had done enough planning while he was Chancellor.

Osborne seems to keep returning to defence of his "austerity" measures, even though he hasn't been asked about them yet.

He said there was "no point" in having a contingency plan if the economy couldn't "flex" in a crisis.

He's being robust in his defence of his own economic policy - echoing his old boss and friend David Cameron yesterday.

And you could be forgiven for feeling like you'd tuned into a politics programme from a decade ago.

Osborne is asked if he agrees that by the time Covid hit, the consequences of austerity were a depleted health and social care capacity and rising inequality in the UK.

"Most certainly not, I completely reject that," he says.

He says it's not a surprise the biggest economic crash Britain experienced since the 1930s had an impact on poverty, unemployment and life chances.

He says had he not set about fixing seriously impaired public finances, Britain would've been more exposed, not just to the pandemic but to the fiscal crisis which rapidly followed in countries across Europe.

Blackwell asks if he agrees that the state of the social care system became worse during his time in office.

"I'm not sure I would accept that," he responds.

But Osborne says he accepts there were rising pressures on the social care system driven by Britain's ageing population at a rapid rate and the cost of medical treatment going up.

Blackwell is reading a witness statement by medical scientist Sir Mark Walport, which says every national emergency has a knock on effect on citizens lives, and there's always a possibility the cure could cause harmful side effects.

The statement goes on to say that lockdowns, quarantines, closing international borders and closing schools and businesses has adverse consequences.

Osborne says the government had to wrestle with the costs and benefits of dealing with the health problem of the pandemic versus the impact of closing a school, the court system and prisons.

He says the truth is that different human beings will value different things.

Some will say education of a child is more important than protecting older patients in care homes, but democratic governments are accountable to the public to make those difficult decisions, he adds.

Blackwell continues her questioning.

"May I suggest," she says, "had the Treasury been interested in engaging in pre-pandemic planning then it would have taken a bigger part in the two exercises that took place during your tenure and just after you'd left."

She says looking at a pandemic exercise from 2016, Exercise Alice, the Treasury wasn't present.

At Exercise Cygnus, also in 2016, the Treasury was present but there's no evidence of any participation.

However, Osborne says the exercises were operational about how the plan would have been put in place, "in which there wouldn't be a particular role at that moment for a Treasury policy maker."

Blackwell is talking now about a report produced in 2017 by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Part of the statement says that there could be one-off risks such as a large-scale outbreak of disease which generate demand for additional health spending.

It said the cabinet office considers this represents the most significant civil emergency risk.

Blackwell asks "does it surprise you, given what I've just read out, that despite there being an acknowledgement of the influenza pandemic being the most significant emergency risk identified by the National Risk Register, that the pandemic did not appear as a risk on the fiscal list?"

Osborne says "they made their own decisions. You'd have to ask them."

He also mentions how Brexit took away resources from risk planning and focus.

Blackwell asks "should there have been a plan, blueprint or playbook" from the Treasury when something like the pandemic occurred?

Osborne says: "In hindsight, yes" - but he questions whether in 2011 or 2012 people would have thought it was plausible that the public would be asked to stay indoors for months on end.

Osborne is speaking now about other countries and their approach to planning.

"Would we all have gone into lockdown if China had not locked down in January and February," he says.

"I think the Chinese lockdown is what gives the rest of the world the idea of the lockdown and its the overwhelming of the hospital system in northern Italy that then leads all western government to reach basically the same conclusion."

He says he wondered if they had done a table top exercise whether they'd have come to the conclusion the population could be put under lockdown.

Blackwell says: "We'll never know because it was never done."