Strengthening Community Resilience
Esther McVey Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that the UK is the most resilient country that we can be.
Let me begin by sending my condolences to the families of the two men who tragically died in storm conditions this weekend. It is an all-too-grim reminder of the devastating impact that storms can have. I saw that at first hand when I visited Cornwall in the wake of Storm Goretti earlier this year. Weather stations recorded wind speeds of 100 mph; some 50,000 homes, schools and businesses were left without power; and entire communities became trapped as fallen trees blocked country lanes. I heard families’ fear as they talked about how quickly the basic necessities of everyday life were stripped away—power, water and the internet. I thank the first responders for their tireless efforts in clearing roads and reconnecting homes. Those scenes will be familiar to Members right across the House.
On 8 January, in the south-west, it was an extreme storm. Over the summer, across the UK, it was wildfires. This week, it has been Storm Austen and Storm Boelo. Climate change is making extreme weather not just more likely, but more powerful. This winter is set to be difficult, with El Niño increasing the likelihood of storms and heavy rainfall.
Since we came into government in 2024, we have been hardening and sharpening the UK’s approach to resilience. We have re-written the Government’s pandemic strategy, investing more than £1 billion to build the UK’s biological defences. We have launched the home defence programme to ensure that our country is best prepared for the full range of potential threats, no matter how unlikely they might be. Up and down these isles, we are taking co-ordinated action to prepare our infrastructure for difficult weather this winter. We have £1.4 billion invested in flood defences in this financial year alone; £24 billion invested to maintain and improve our roads and rail network over the next four years; and £2.6 billion invested to climate-proof our rail infrastructure, with projects under way or completed in places such as County Durham, Derbyshire and Cumbria. Throughout the coming winter, I will be working across Government to ensure an effective response to storms as they occur.
However, in reflecting on the experience of the people I met in Cornwall, it is clear to me that, in the middle of an emergency, our brilliant first responders cannot be everywhere all at once. It is clear that proper preparedness begins in our communities, streets and homes. Our research shows that just 13% of people in the UK feel that they are prepared for an emergency, such as a severe storm, that could cut them off from the services that they rely on. That figure is far lower than the figure for our European neighbours. The very same research showed that 84% of people in the UK want the Government to share more information about the steps that they can take to increase their preparedness.
To give some credit to the Opposition, they recognised that resilience gap while in government and launched a new website to share preparedness guidance with the public. However, that website stopped short of a proper campaign; not enough people noticed it, and those who did found the guidance hard to follow. This Government are committed to having an honest conversation with the public about the risks that we face and helping them to prepare—household by household, step by step—to improve our national resilience. To that effect, we have published updated preparedness guidance for households and launched a three-year campaign to raise awareness of the simple steps that people can take to be ready for everyday emergencies.
I want to be clear from the outset that we are not launching this campaign because of any specific or imminent threat. Instead, launching this campaign brings the UK into line with almost every single European country and countless others around the world that already run similar campaigns every year. In developing the campaign, the Government have worked with more than 500 different organisations—emergency services, businesses, voluntary groups and local authorities—to develop guidance that meets the needs of communities.
I will touch briefly on the guidance before outlining the campaign. The guidance is designed to help households to be self-sufficient for three days in an emergency. We have published a full checklist of the simple steps that households can take. The two main actions are: ensuring that you have three days-worth of water and non-perishable food, and signing up to the priority services register if you or someone in your household is eligible for extra support in a utility outage. As many people who can follow that common-sense guidance should follow it. By playing their part, people will be helping themselves as well as others in their community, because, in an emergency, every household that has taken the steps set out on the checklist is one less household that the emergency services need to give extra support to.
We are also encouraging people to check in on their neighbours and to be ready to help each other out. We have worked hand in hand with charities to ensure that the campaign is helpful for everyone, including organisations representing disabled people, people struggling with their mental health and people who rely on food banks. Many actions on the checklist—such as signing up to the priority services register—are completely free, and others can be ticked off over time by adding one item per week to the weekly shop. This is about helping as many people as possible to be ready for an emergency, so that help can arrive to those most in need first. To those who think this campaign is an overreaction, I say, “Think of the people I met in Cornwall and those in countless other communities across the UK, including the tens of thousands of people who were without power this very weekend.” Their lived experience proves otherwise.
The campaign will run for at least three years, and is called “Be Ready”. It is being run hand in hand with our emergency services, local councils and resilience forums, and voluntary organisations. I am pleased to report that since launch, the campaign website has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times and the campaign checklist has been downloaded tens of thousands of times, and while it is too early to have formal polling data, anecdotal evidence and partner data shows that people up and down the country are heeding our advice. This is just the start, however; over the coming weeks, people will begin to see information about what they can do popping up online, on the radio, and out and about in their local community. That is just the point—this is a community-led campaign. Over the coming weeks, we will also be sharing toolkits that partners can use to get involved. I encourage Members across the House to support the campaign, read the advice and help their constituents to be ready. Together, we can ensure our communities are ready for everyday emergencies, whenever or wherever they occur. I hope that the Be Ready campaign will unite communities across the United Kingdom, and I am working closely with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all of whom back this campaign and the lifesaving advice it will share.
Mr Speaker, before entering Parliament, I was proud to serve in the Parachute Regiment, whose motto, “Ready for anything”, comes to mind today. What you might not know is that, even longer ago—perhaps longer ago than I would care to admit—I was a Boy Scout, hard though that might be to believe.
Dan Jarvis
I am sure that Opposition Members, and indeed hon. Members from across the House, will all know the motto of the scouting movement. It is not “Dyb, dyb, dyb”, as the right hon. Lady says.
International Update
Esther McVey Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and I commend him for the excellent work he did to lay the groundwork for this deal. He is right: in these circumstances and at this moment in time, it is incumbent on every Member of the House to do whatever we can to relieve pressure on British business, and that is what we will do. It is interesting that this afternoon the country will be able to see that we are prepared to do it, but the Opposition are not.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Prime Minister opened today’s statement with the words that he
“took a clear message to the United Nations: that…Britain is back and can be relied upon as a consistent and stable partner”.
Is the same true of the Prime Minister? If so, can he tell me whether he plans to honour the Brexit referendum outcome, as he said in May when courting the Brexit voters of Makerfield, or is he planning to overturn it either partially or fully?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Lady that I am always a stable and consistent partner. Indeed, I will honour the result of the referendum, as I always have for the last 10 years—that is a clear commitment, as is the commitment to our manifesto, as I explained just a moment ago—but I am also going to lead and will be prepared to set out options that I think Britain should consider. If she is saying that she is happy with the status quo, she is in a minority in this country. People know that Britain can do better than this. I am determined to secure better for Britain. I am just surprised that the Opposition are setting their ambitions for our country so low.
Direction of Government
Esther McVey Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I was really distressed by what I saw in his community following the tragic death of our two police officers, and the seven lives lost in total. I know it has sent shockwaves through the community. I know from my previous role about the unfairness in police funding—or that is how it is felt in some parts of the country—and I know he and his colleagues feel that. We do need to look at that question as part of the Home Secretary’s wider police reform programme.
On the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, the manifesto commits us to the largest wave of insourcing in a generation, and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is overseeing that work. Taking one example that I mentioned in my statement, if we bring in employment support, often delivered through outsourced contracts, and put it under the control of mayors and combined authorities, who can spend that funding through the community, voluntary and social enterprise sector, I personally believe that money would achieve far greater results than it currently does.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Could the Prime Minister explain what was so particularly deserving about the Avanti train drivers that they warranted such a pay increase, or was it done just to avoid the embarrassment of the Cabinet not being able to get back and forth to his “No. 10 of the North” vanity project? Or do we take it that this Prime Minister will cave in to every trade union demand that comes across his desk?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do the misery that her constituents have suffered on the west coast main line, particularly since her Government handed it over to Avanti West Coast. They should not be expected to put up with that. Manchester lost its services under her Government. We have to have a functioning railway line, and the agreement reached with the drivers will give that security of a good service to people in her constituency and across the north-west.
Oral Answers to Questions
Esther McVey Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. The Government are investing in our NHS to make sure that every second counts. I know my hon. Friend’s husband, and I know the impact that this had on him and on her, and on their wider family. I thank her for raising such a personal issue in the Chamber to highlight this point.
Because of the choices that we have made, ambulance response times are at their fastest for five years. We are investing £10 billion to innovate technology and transformation, and the NHS is already using artificial intelligence to cut treatment time for stroke patients by an hour and tripling full recovery rates.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I agree with what we said in our manifesto, which we are implementing. We are closer to the EU as a result of the agreement we reached last year, and we will be closer again as a result of the agreement we reach this year. We are building on the botched Brexit deal that the Conservatives did, which did such damage to our country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Esther McVey Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that really important question from the hon. Gentleman, and he is right to address this issue. A core part of our violence against women and girls strategy is tackling the online proliferation of harmful narratives that are being pushed on our young men and boys. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and I hosted a roundtable across Government, with the Secretary of State for Education present, to look at how best we can support our men and boys in a positive way to provide them with opportunities going forward, so that they are not being pushed the message that they are to blame and are toxic. I want to be very clear that “toxic masculinity” does not mean that all men are toxic—that is a really important point to make.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Jean Taylor set up the organisation Families Fighting for Justice after her daughter, Chantel Taylor, was violently and savagely murdered. The murderer then desecrated and concealed her body. Jean Taylor wants to make sure that that is a crime in its own right, not just an aggravating factor. Not only could she not grieve for her daughter or bury her—Chantel’s three children could not do so either—but serious evidence was hidden by the hiding of the body. The murderer is now out on the streets. Will the Minister please meet me and Jean Taylor to discuss a Chantel’s law?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that issue. I had hoped to drop in to the event that she hosted yesterday in Parliament to meet Jean directly. Ministerial responsibilities meant that I was unable to do so, but I will commit today to meeting her and Jean to discuss this matter. The right hon. Lady will know that the Law Commission is looking specifically at desecration of a body; that work is ongoing. The Government will look carefully at the report to see what more we can do. I know that this is an issue, and I will happily meet her and Jean.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update
Esther McVey Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right. There is a whole series of processes that this Government inherited as the status quo, including the due process from the previous Administration that was used in the past for other political appointments and direct ministerial appointments. This episode has shown that those processes needed to be updated, and the Government are working on modernising those rules and will bring those reforms to the House in due course.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Is there any truth in the claims that the delay in the Government adhering to the Humble Address motion is because Cabinet Ministers are refusing to hand over their mobile phones because of the messages between them and Mandelson that they contain, and the embarrassment that that will cause them?
Darren Jones
Cabinet Ministers have received instructions from the Cabinet Office about the declaration of the information that they hold on either corporate or personal communications channels, and they have all complied with that direction.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Esther McVey Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the bottom line: the Prime Minister shaped the system by having a settled political decision—one with horrific consequences—despite all the warnings that we have talked about in this House, about Mandelson being fired twice and so on, and now tries to point to the process as the failing. The country is not buying it. The film teaches us this simple lesson: power cannot hide behind those who obey it.
Before I finish, I have a message for Labour MPs and will address them directly. To paraphrase Colonel Jessep’s famous speech, the PM neither has the time nor the inclination to explain himself to Back Benchers who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very majority that he provides and then question the manner in which the PM provides it. The PM would rather they say just “thank you” and went on their way. Otherwise, he suggests they pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, he does not give a damn about what they are entitled to.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Following the revelations at the Foreign Affairs Committee today by Oliver Robbins, who said how the Prime Minister had pushed for Peter Mandelson to be appointed and had pushed for his former director of communications, Matthew Doyle, to be appointed as well, though unqualified for the post, does my hon. Friend agree that those are the actions of a Prime Minister concerned not about the national interest but rather his personal interest? Nor are they the actions of a Prime Minister concerned about national security; they are merely the actions of someone concerned about his job security—and particularly in pushing for Peter Mandelson, who is a known national security risk.
Esther McVey
The Prime Minister has clearly said that he was right to sack the senior civil servant Oliver Robbins, so can the Minister guarantee that the Government will contest any employment claim from Sir Oliver Robbins for unfair or constructive dismissal all the way to the employment tribunal, and will not use taxpayer money to pay off this gentleman to avoid that outcome?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Lady will know that I am not at liberty to comment in respect of any potential claim to the employment tribunal.
Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was carried out by UKSV between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. That included collecting relevant information and interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. One issue has been raised in the debate about that time period; there is a suggestion that No. 10 applied pressure on officials at the Foreign Office in relation to the security vetting process. It was confirmed in testimony today before the Foreign Affairs Committee that no such pressure was applied beyond asking for the process to be completed as quickly as possible, and confirmed by Sir Olly Robbins that there was no personal contact by telephone or message. That is testimony from the official himself in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
On 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. The following day, on 29 January 2025, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson none the less. This was an established process for the Foreign Office, which had the authority to be able to make those decisions. It is worth reiterating for the sake of clarity, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that UKSV makes decisions for many Government Departments, but not for the Foreign Office. The final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not by UKSV.
When I became aware of the details of Peter Mandelson’s case following the publication of reporting in The Guardian last Thursday, I was briefed on the matter that evening at the Cabinet Office by officials in respect of both the case of Peter Mandelson and the existing policy on UKSV recommendations and the Foreign Office’s decisions. I immediately suspended the right for the Foreign Office to overrule UKSV recommendations pending further investigation. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), I can confirm that the review that Adrian Fulford will conduct for the Government should be completed in around four weeks, so that we can take a quick decision on the proper functioning of the process.
Security Vetting
Esther McVey Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Yes, we will comply with the Humble Address in full. That is the process that is going on.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Prime Minister said today, “I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible.” He is right: we do—along with his staggering lack of curiosity and his inability to take on board warnings about his good friend Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister was given a due diligence document by the Cabinet Office, which told him several reasons why Peter Mandelson should not be appointed, including that he was fired twice from Government, had business dealings in Russia and China, and had maintained a relationship with Epstein after his imprisonment for paedophilia. The Prime Minister knew this but appointed him anyway. Why, Prime Minister, why?
The Prime Minister
Peter Mandelson was asked various questions on the back of the due diligence exercise and he did not tell the truth in his answers. The decision to appoint him was an error: it was my error, and I have apologised for it.
Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review
Esther McVey Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Jones
As my hon. Friend knows, any donations that individuals receive—from Labour Together or from a trade union, Momentum or any other organisation—are for them to declare in line with the rules, and I do not think there has been any accusation that Members have been in breach of those rules.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The steps taken by the former head of Labour Together to smear journalists when they dared to look into the murky finances of this Labour think-tank are nothing short of chilling. No longer head of Labour Together, he is now serving as a Minister in the Cabinet Office, which is the Department currently looking into his actions, so he will be marking his own homework. When is the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office going to be sacked, if he will not do the decent thing and resign?
Darren Jones
I know my voice is going, but maybe the right hon. Lady did not hear my response to the urgent question. The process is being led by the independent adviser for ethics, which is not the Cabinet Office. As I have said, the independent adviser will report to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister will then make a decision.
Standards in Public Life
Esther McVey Excerpts(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I point the hon. Lady to the duty of candour provisions that we are bringing forward in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which will include criminal sanctions for those who breach the rules. As I said to her hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am happy to consider the wider recommendations for whistleblowers that she mentions.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Given the importance of standards in public life, why is it that the adviser who suggested that Peter Mandelson be made ambassador to the United States had to resign, but the person who actually appointed Peter Mandelson—the Prime Minister —is still in post?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister apologised last Thursday for having appointed Peter Mandelson. Had information that is now available been available at the time of his appointment, he would not have appointed him in the first place.