Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report
Debate between Baroness Wheatcroft and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
The noble Lord raises an incredibly important point. We live at a time when people do not want to trust our institutions and we have given people far too many reasons not to trust us. There is responsibility on every single one of us, both the Government and the Opposition, but also everyone who seeks to hold public office, to rebuild trust in every one of our institutions. I cannot imagine how it must be for the victims, especially for the families who had young children and who would immediately have trusted their doctors and their teachers, to have ended up in this place. Every touchstone of our society let them down, and it took us far too long as a country to accept what had happened to them. We have a duty to the people who were touched by this horrendous scandal to fix what was broken.
But the noble Lord is absolutely right that we also have a responsibility to wider society to demonstrate that the state is, can be and must be a force for good, that the state exists for a reason, that the establishment is not a bad word but a good word, and it can and should help communities up and down the country. So the noble Lord is absolutely right that the Government have committed to spend whatever it takes to fulfil our commitments in terms of compensation. We say many times in this building that we must learn from mistakes made, but we have to do more than learn; we have to act, and I hope that we will do so going forward.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government in wanting to put right this situation as quickly as possible. In the Autumn Budget, £11.8 billion was set aside for that purpose, but as we have heard, the amounts that have so far been paid have been pitiful. Can the noble Baroness give the House any indication of how quickly the Government want to see that money go out? Unless there is real urgency, more and more people will continue to die without adequate compensation.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
I would like it all out of the door today but, candidly, it will take longer than that. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: we pledged £11.8 billion in the Autumn Budget, and this week we announced another further £1 billion of costings. At the next Autumn Budget, we will confirm, after consultation with the community, how much the wider changes will cost; we assume it will be £1 billion, but that number is subject to ongoing consultation. We will expedite this as quickly as possible. With those in the infected community who are already subject to payment schemes, that is more straightforward. There is a wider challenge about the affected community, because obviously we do not know how many of them there are, and we always have to make sure that we are balancing protecting public funds while supporting those people who have been touched by this.
The only challenge from the noble Baroness on which I would slightly push back is that, in fact, £1.2 billion has already been distributed in interim payments, which is a significant amount of money, and £411 million—a much smaller sum—has been paid out so far to those people who have come forward to IBCA, as part of £602 million that has currently gone forward in offers. So, although the final settlements are a smaller figure, £1.2 billion been allocated.
Government Resilience Action Plan
Debate between Baroness Wheatcroft and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. Sometimes it is easy to separate our online and our offline worlds. With the issue of misinformation and the cyber threats we currently face, there is a clear crossover between online and offline and the impact that can have. This is clearly a space where we need to operate internationally, and we do so. Only recently, my honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met with the Japanese cyber Minister, to make sure we were having cross-country communications. Deepening our intelligence ties through both existing networks, and also through our responsibilities under Article 3 of NATO, as well as ensuring we are one step ahead of both cyber and misinformation threats, will be key, given the current threats we face as a country.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has been very helpful in her answers so far, but, to go back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, there seems to be a bit of a gap between the defence strategy, the conversations that we have here and the amount of money that is going into defence, and the message that we are getting out to the public. Certainly, the prepare strategy at the moment is quite squeamish in itemising the threats. Will the Government be clearer, as other countries are with their people, in telling them what we want them really to be prepared for as well as cyber and floods, which will not affect everybody.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. The only issue that I would challenge her on is that cyber could affect everybody; we just saw what happened with Marks & Spencer, for example. There is potentially an impact on everybody.
The noble Baroness makes an important point about itemising the threats. We are trying to make sure that the foundations are solid, and, candidly, there are gaps. On where we sit and how we seek to move forward, it is about making sure that people understand what responsibilities they have. Even if 10% of people put in extra support at home, that means 10% of people who, in an emergency, we will not have to look after in the immediate 24 hours, and so we can focus our efforts on the more vulnerable. It is about how we make sure that our resources are more effective, and that people understand what they should have at home.
After Covid, we had many conversations about toilet roll and flour. Making sure that people have what they need at home for a week’s worth of supplies is a conversation we should all be having anyway—although, like most people, I want to put a lot of those memories in a box and not have to think about them again.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there has to be a real conversation with the general public. I truly believe my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has started such a conversation with the country in discussing the scale of threat, how our world is changing very quickly around us, what responsibilities we must have and what impact that might have on our day-to-day lives. Some of it is about money and some of it is about actions and personal responsibility.
Improving Cyber Resilience
Debate between Baroness Wheatcroft and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a series of important questions. Given the detail of them, I will write to her, and make sure that I speak to relevant officials, so that she gets the answers that she seeks. On One Login, over 5 million people are currently using it to prove their identity, and the ID Check app has over 6.5 million downloads, and a 4.7 rating on all app stores. If there are questions to answer, I will make sure that we get her the answers.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the government advice to companies facing not just a cyberattack but a ransom demand; whether that advice tallies with the advice and, indeed, instructions from their insurers; and how much money companies have paid out in ransom demands so far?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the threat of ransomware and ransoms are clearly appalling crimes undertaken by cybercriminals. The Home Office—and I can speak only for the public service and Government—has concluded a consultation on world-leading proposals to strike at the heart of the ransomware business model, cutting off criminals’ funding and protecting UK business by deterring threats.
The position of the Government is that public funds will not be used to pay ransom demands made by cybercriminals. This is, however, an important issue, which is why last year the National Crime Agency led a global collaboration to disrupt one of the most dangerous cybercrime networks in the world. In February, the UK sanctioned six Russian individuals for facilitating crippling ransomware attacks. This is at the frontier of the cyber threat, and from the Government’s perspective, we highly recommend that people do not pay ransoms; there is no guarantee that their data has not already been sold on.