The coronavirus crisis shows that government needs the capacity to deal with tough times

Former ministers are generally positive about how governments respond to a crisis. In the IfG’s Ministers Reflect series Alan Johnson, who served as both home and health secretary, describes how “government swings into action” and officials “don’t panic”, while ex-Conservative minister Greg Barker thought that crises “brought out the best in people”. The swift action that government can take during a military or civil emergency contrasts with ministerial frustration at what can seem to be the treacle-like stickiness of normal decision-making.

But in order to manage the unprecedented coronavirus crisis the government needs enough skilled workers and spare equipment to respond across a whole range of public services. Many years of seeking a leaner, more efficient state means that there is little surplus in the system, and some parts of the public sector, for example prisons and adult social care, are significantly under-resourced.

As we have seen, governments can unlock money quickly when necessary - but they cannot immediately find and train people or buy and source equipment and facilities.

The government machine needs enough capacity to respond to crises

A crisis response, almost by definition, means that something new or different has to happen in the real world. This puts strain on government and civil service systems, which respond with extra energy and focus as people work harder and objectives and resources are reprioritised.

In recent weeks we have seen the extraordinary mobilisation of the government machine and we can admire the skills and dedication of many of the professionals involved: the civil servants in the Treasury and other economic departments; the wider public sector, including of course the NHS; and the officials who are helping to co-ordinate the private and charitable sectors.

But there can never be “enough” people or facilities to deal with a situation like this, whether it is the workers to operate the system, or beds in the health and social care services, to deal with a situation like this one. It is an unprecedented crisis, and the government will feel the lack of available capacity. In normal times, before Covid-19 even existed, spending money on what would have seemed like insurance for a distant and unlikely events was regarded as a luxury. We see now that it is essential.

Government cannot prepare for everything

Nobody can predict when a crisis will hit and what form it will take. Government cannot maintain redundant reserves of staff to respond to every possible emergency, and ministers won’t want the taxpayer to pay people to do nothing. If resources are invested in preparing for one specific but unusual event, they are not being used to prepare for a different one.

But we can be sure that the coronavirus response will reshape the state in the short term , with this and future governments recognising the benefits of maintaining a flexible response capability of people, facilities and equipment, to bolster systems that have for many years been geared towards being leaner. Future governments should not want to push services to close to the brink.

Sustained investment and flexible contingency response systems are needed

Those parts of the public sector that are crucial to our health, economy and society need to be made resilient enough to function under strain, with the NHS a clear example of what happens when governments maximise short-term efficiency.

The number of overnight hospitals beds in the English NHS has fallen over the last decade, and the UK has the second fewest beds per capita of the G7 countries. The aim to provide more care outside hospital was laudable, and made sense while patients’ average overnight hospital stays were falling, but it reduced the NHS’ ability to provide care to patients in an emergency demand shock. Buying more hospital beds, or investing in more social and intermediate community care to provide care outside hospital, should be a priority.

Nor is the NHS the only example, with other parts of the state, from courts and prisons to reforming the benefits regime while taking money out of the system, also running with little slack.

The government will also face pressure to enhance its contingency co-ordination apparatus, building on existing links with those parts of the state that are, in and of themselves, a giant contingency response measure. The Ministry of Defence, for all its well-documented problems with procurement and budgeting, exists to provide an emergency response. Future governments may look as much towards military experts as to policy-wonks.

And in the wider private sector, where we have enjoyed the benefits of pared back, flexible supply chains, offering vast choice at relatively low cost, limitations were already exposed during the planning for a no-deal Brexit last year. The coronavirus response will, at the very least, encourage firms to work out how they can rapidly shift to reducing choice and boosting bulk supply.

The choices ministers make during this crisis will reshape our lives in countless ways in the short and long term. The need for a higher level of long-term funding for core public services to maintain their resilience, as well as to improve day-to-day services, will be high up the public’s list of priorities.