Direction of Government

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

A healthy nation is always the aim of every Government. If we look back to when the National Health Service was first set up, we see that it was set up as part of the Department of Housing, because those two things are inextricably linked. I remember being at a friend’s 60th birthday party a while ago. She said the three things you needed for a long and happy life were home, good health and work—she added “someone to love”, because she was very happily married. Those are the determinants that make life worth living. If we have not got a healthy nation, we will not have a productive nation.

As well as physical health, we need to do more on mental health issues, which have become a serious issue. If you look at the number of people who are not working because of mental health issues, you see that that is something that desperately needs changing across the country. So, yes, I can give my noble friend that assurance. The Health Bill was recently introduced in the other place. It will be coming to this House, where we will have the opportunity to discuss those kinds of issues.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I too wish the new Prime Minister well. The key question is whether he represents a change in style or substance. Going back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord True, what are the three new things versus the Starmer Government that the Prime Minister wants to bring in, and what are the three things that he wants to stop?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not answering questions such as that. It is more than a change of style. There is a change of style, but the same values remain. As measures come forward, both in the Budget and as we progress the programme, and then when we see a King’s Speech in due course, we will see the changes. However, totting up a change here or a difference there, as if it were some kind of balance sheet, is not the way we want to do politics.

Covid-19: PPE Procurement

Debate between Lord Markham and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have raised the issue of fraud in PPE contracts previously. Apparently, PPE Medpro was awarded contracts via the VIP lane amounting to £200 million, despite it not even existing when Ministers were first contacted. Then, just over a year ago, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, then the Health Minister, admitted that the department was engaged in ongoing

“discussions (potentially leading to litigation) in respect to 40 PPE contracts with a combined value of £1.2 billion covering 1.7 billion items of PPE.”

The following January, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, resigned, criticising the Government’s track record in countering fraud across government. In relation to the PPE contracts of £1.2 billion, will the Minister update the House on how much of that money has now been returned to the taxpayer? Can he say what amount is outstanding, either where negotiations continue or where legal action is now being taken or is pending? If he does not have that information immediately to hand, will he commit to write to me and place his letter in the Library?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, and I commit to write with the precise figures. To put it into context, we should remember that this was at a time when unprecedented action was required. Of the 38 billion PPE items ordered, 98% were delivered and just 3% were unfit for purpose. Within that, clearly there is action that needs to be worked on and action is being taken to pursue those damages. I will put those in writing, so that the noble Baroness can understand them all. As I say, it is good if noble Lords recall that the priority at the time was clearly getting equipment to help protect and save lives, and that was what was done. Were mistakes made? Of course. Are we seeking to address those now by going back to take action against those people? Yes, of course we are, but we need to keep it in the context that the undoubted priority was to buy PPE and protect lives.