Ministers' Gifts and Hospitality and Other Transparency Data
Pat McFadden Excerpts(3 days, 23 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality
As part of the Government’s commitment to transparency, the Prime Minister updated the ministerial code on 6 November 2024. This requires the Cabinet Office to publish a Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality every month.
The register will bring closer alignment between ministerial declarations of gifts and hospitality and the parliamentary regime, ending the system where ministerial declarations are published many months after parliamentary declarations. The register will also require ministers, for the first time, to declare where possible an estimated value for all hospitality received.
In line with this requirement, the Cabinet Office published on Thursday 30 January the following datasets:
Ministers’ gifts and hospitality for the period of July to October 2024;
the first monthly Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality for November 2024; and
the second monthly Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality for December 2024.
The Cabinet Office also published new guidance on the publication process for the new register. The Government will publish a Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality at the end of each month.
Other transparency datasets
Government Departments also published the following routine transparency data for the period of July to September 2024:
Ministers’ meetings with external individuals and organisations, and overseas travel;
special advisers’ gifts, hospitality and meetings with senior media figures;
senior officials’ business expenses, hospitality and meetings with external individuals and organisations; and
business appointment rules advice given to applicants at SCS2 and SCS1—and special advisers at equivalent levels.
[HCWS408]
Storm Éowyn
Pat McFadden Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to Storm Éowyn.
On Thursday of last week, the Met Office issued two red weather warnings for Storm Éowyn, meaning there was danger to life across Northern Ireland and central and southern Scotland. As a result, and in consultation with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, I approved a decision to issue an emergency mobile phone alert containing information about the weather warnings and guidance on how to stay as safe as possible to approximately 4.5 million people across Northern Ireland and Scotland. This was the largest real-life use of the emergency alert system to date.
On Friday morning, Storm Éowyn brought extremely strong winds to different parts of the UK, with gusts exceeding 92 mph in Northern Ireland. Initial observations from the Met Office say it was “probably the strongest storm” to hit the UK in at least 10 years and the most severe storm for Northern Ireland since 1998. Very sadly, we have had reports so far of two deaths during the storm—a young man in Scotland and a young man in the Republic of Ireland. Our thoughts are with and our condolences go to their families.
The storm caused widespread property damage and significant disruption to transport and power supplies, particularly in Northern Ireland and Scotland. At its peak, 285,000 properties in Northern Ireland—that is about a quarter of the population—and around 290,000 properties in Scotland lost power. More than 95% of the customers in Scotland have had their power restored. Work is continuing to bring that number down. In England and Wales, around 325,000 properties lost supply, and the vast majority have been reconnected.
As a result of the power outages, disruption to telecoms was reported by mobile phone operators in the areas affected. Significant impacts were also felt across the rail and road networks, with train services cancelled, and Edinburgh airport and both Belfast airports suspending operations on Friday. Also on Friday, all schools in Northern Ireland were closed, as were almost 90% of Scotland’s schools, and all colleges and universities. In England, there was also a smaller number of school closures. As a result of the storm, around 3,000 properties in Northern Ireland are experiencing disruption to water supplies, and supplies of bottled water are en route to Northern Ireland.
I want to thank the emergency services, the engineers and others who have worked tirelessly and with great courage in the face of extremely difficult weather conditions. They put in a huge effort to provide support to those who have needed it to restore power, repair damage and clear roads and railways. I know the whole House will join me in thanking them for their work.
The Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have led the response efforts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and there has been good co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Governments over the past few days. We remain in regular contact to assess the situation and see what more needs to be done. On Saturday, the Prime Minister spoke to the Scottish First Minister and the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister to offer any support that the UK Government could provide. Today, the Prime Minister has also spoken to the Taoiseach and discussed the latest situation in the Republic of Ireland.
Over the weekend, I chaired a ministerial Cobra meeting with relevant Cabinet colleagues as well as the First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. I reiterated the Prime Minister’s offer of assistance, and we discussed the practical support that the UK Government could provide. Under industry arrangements, electricity network operators have facilitated mutual aid, and 102 engineers with equipment have travelled to Northern Ireland to support power restoration. Northern Ireland has requested specific mutual aid from Great Britain in the form not only of engineers, but of helicopters, generators and batteries, as well as equipment more widely, including chainsaws and vehicles.
UK Government Departments are moving as quickly as they can to meet these requests. We believe the majority of requests can be met through either the usual mutual aid channels or, in some cases, commercial arrangements with industry. The Cobra unit in my Department, which has met twice over the weekend at official level and once again this morning, is continuing to co-ordinate the support to ensure it is provided as swiftly as possible.
I have met Cobra officials several times to review the situation and ensure that we are doing all we can to support those affected. The message has been simple: to get as much help as quickly as possible to where it is needed. The situation on the ground is improving, but it is estimated that it could be up to 10 days before everyone is reconnected—a long time. This is very serious and we are working as hard as we can to accelerate the restoration of power.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is today in Northern Ireland, where he has met the Minister for Infrastructure to discuss recovery, and residents impacted by the storm. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks) is in Scotland this afternoon, meeting staff who are working on reconnections. Since Friday, around 220,000 properties in Northern Ireland, and 600,000 across Great Britain, have had their power restored. Welfare provisions have been provided to households without power, travel disruption has eased, most schools in Northern Ireland have reopened today, and we hope that the majority of the remainder will reopen tomorrow.
However, the situation remains serious and there is a need for ongoing help. In Northern Ireland an estimated 60,000 properties are still without power, as are around 7,500 in Scotland. Northern Ireland electricity networks expect to restore power to the vast majority of homes and businesses over the coming days, and we will continue to provide additional support that may be needed to accelerate that reconnection for as many households as possible.
Storm Éowyn has now moved away from the UK, but another storm, which the Spanish Met Office has named Storm Herminia, has brought heavy bands of rain to south-west England and Wales. A number of properties have been flooded, and 35,000 properties lost power, although the majority of those have now had it restored. We expect the impact of this storm to be significantly less than that of Storm Éowyn.
I hope this statement underscores the seriousness and urgency with which the Government are working to address the destruction that Storm Éowyn has wrought. In the days ahead we will continue to work closely with our colleagues in the devolved Governments, particularly in Northern Ireland, which has been worst hit in this situation, to ensure that all households are reconnected as soon as possible, and that full support is provided to affected households in the meantime. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his statement and for providing advance sight of it. I pay tribute to all the emergency services, responders and volunteers who have undertaken, and continue to undertake, action in response to Storm Éowyn. We join the Minister in sending our deepest condolences to those families who are grieving after the tragic deaths in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.
Red weather warnings are rarely issued, and Storm Éowyn is certainly the worst of its kind for some time. It highlights the importance of work to strengthen preparedness and resilience across the board. I understand that the Government will be undertaking a pandemic preparedness exercise later this year. Are there any plans to undertake a similar exercise for storms and adverse weather, particularly focusing on the use of the emergency alert system that was introduced by the previous Government, its effectiveness, and the protection of critical infrastructure?
On critical infrastructure, in relation to water, what can the UK Government do to help ensure the resilience of those systems that went down over the weekend into the future? Much of the damage has been caused, or worsened, by extensive flooding. I recognise that the Government have established the floods resilience taskforce, but reports suggest that it has met just once since July. That is disappointing, if true, and I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify what actions were taken up as a result of that meeting.
As communities seek to recover and rebuild after Storm Éowyn, many face being hit again by Storm Herminia. What preparations are in place for that storm, and what flooding response preparations are now in place after the weekend?
Storm Éowyn has caused enormous damage right across the United Kingdom, as the Secretary of State said, but Scotland and Northern Ireland were particularly hard-hit. It is imperative that the Government fully understand the challenges faced by devolved authorities in providing adequate funding for storm and flooding preparedness, as well as response. I would appreciate clarity from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what work is being taken forward under the proper agreements to ensure progress on that.
I would also appreciate clarity on what discussions were held with the devolved Administrations ahead of the storm to co-ordinate responses and ensure that the proper preparations were in place. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out in his statement, winds of more than 90 mph left a quarter of all homes in Northern Ireland, as well as many businesses, without power. Labour made a commitment in its manifesto to support the Northern Ireland Executive to improve public services in the Province. If ever there was a test of the Government’s commitment to supporting the Executive and public services in Northern Ireland, it is now, after this horrific storm.
We understand that, under mutual aid arrangements, the UK Government are providing some targeted support to Northern Ireland. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster unpack that further? I think he said in his statement that 102 engineers from Great Britain were currently in Northern Ireland to get power restored to affected communities. Can he confirm that figure? How many more are due to arrive, and when will they arrive? Can he confirm, given the increased frequency of this type of weather incident, what action he is taking to ensure that Northern Ireland Electricity has the in-house skills and capacity needed to respond to similar events in future? Is NHS England offering any support to the health service in Northern Ireland?
Storm Éowyn hit every nation in our United Kingdom. We have seen travel and power problems, along with the tragic loss of young life in Scotland. In Wales, the storm has prompted school closures and yet more outages. Can the Minister assure the House that he is impressing upon his colleagues in Cardiff Bay and Holyrood the need to make sure that local authorities and local health boards are properly resourced to deliver preparedness and resilience services in their communities, using the record block grants provided by the previous Government and the package announced by the Chancellor in last autumn’s Budget? Our thoughts and prayers are with all those communities affected by Storm Éowyn and with all those working so tirelessly to help them.
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response and, in particular, for his tribute to the emergency service workers and engineers who have worked so hard over recent days. He asked a number of questions, and I will try to go through them.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be a further test of the national emergency alert system. Yes, there will be. I announced that to the House about 10 days ago. There will be a second nationwide test later this year. He asked about resilience meetings. I can assure him that there has been more than one meeting on resilience over the past seven months, and I take part in them regularly. He asked about co-operation with the devolved Governments. There has been good co-operation with the devolved Governments in recent days both at the official level—we have had regular contact over the weekend—and also at the ministerial Cobra meeting that I chaired on Saturday evening, which involved the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and the First Minister of Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman asked about financial support. Both Northern Ireland and Scotland received significant increases in their budgets. I am pleased that he acknowledged—a rare acknowledgment from the Opposition Front Bench—the generosity of the settlement as a result of the Budget from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor a few months ago. He asked about the number of engineers. The latest figure I have is 102, but the number moves around.
As I said in my statement, we have had two storms and floods and power outages in different parts of the country. The principal that my officials and I have tried to instil is this: as much help as possible, as quickly as possible, to the areas where it is needed. That is what has driven our response over the weekend and through today.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Storm Éowyn caused real damage to homes and property in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), who has a family emergency today but with whom I worked closely over the weekend. The costs include significant losses to the economy, after many businesses had to close on Friday. Around 15,000 people lost power across Fife in freezing conditions. I thank the ScottishPower engineers and all those who worked hard in dangerous conditions to get power restored and to care for others. However, some, including older and vulnerable people, on the outskirts of Aberdour, Burntisland, Cowdenbeath and Auchtertool are still without power.
I was closely engaged with many constituents over the weekend, ensuring that a generator was brought to a care home without power in Auchtertool on Saturday. I thank the Windsor hotel in Kirkcaldy and the Woodside hotel in Cowdenbeath, who accommodated people hit by the storm at no cost. Such acts of community solidarity are priceless in times of need. Does the Minister agree that lessons from the response to Storm Éowyn must be learned and implemented, as climate change will bring more extreme weather events? They include the effectiveness of the priority services register, reliance on phoning 105 when people have no mobile phone battery or working phone line, and more preparatory work by the Scottish Government and local authorities to get resources and support to communities.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I echo her thanks to those who have extended premises or help to their neighbours in these difficult times. These events can be very difficult, but they also show the best of society, such as the hotels in Fife that she mentioned. We are constantly learning and adapting from different emergencies and trying to improve our processes. In recent days I have been impressed by the speed with which mutual aid arrangements have worked. It is never perfect, but we will keep trying to learn and improve as these situations arise.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of his statement and for his thoughtful presentation of it. As he said, Storm Éowyn may well have been the strongest storm to hit the United Kingdom in 10 years. Sadly, it is a sign of what is likely to come. I am praying for those who are grieving those who have died, and I pay tribute, alongside everyone else in every corner of this House, to all who worked throughout the weekend to support others, often at great cost and even risk to themselves.
Back home, communities such as Patterdale, Flookburgh, Cark, Shap, Tebay, Crosby Ravensworth, Witherslack and Bouth saw many homes, businesses and community centres lose power. Like others, I am incredibly grateful to the engineers at Electricity North West and the wider community groups who have worked tirelessly to reconnect residents and support those without power. I want to mention the Commodore Inn at Grange over Sands, the Kings Arms at Stainton, the Watermill at Ings and the Kings Head at Ravenstonedale, which provided shelter, food and drink to residents hit by the power cuts.
Storms are becoming more commonplace and severe, and the damage that they leave behind all the more troubling and increasing. Four days on, tens of thousands of homes across the British Isles are still without power, and transport networks remain badly hit. The Government’s failure at the recent Budget to guarantee funding for flood defences beyond this coming financial year is a cause of great anxiety for communities such as mine, who are often the first to be hit by extreme weather events. It also strikes me as extraordinarily short-sighted. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster demand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts this right, and quickly?
Farmers are our crucial ally in the fight to build more storm-resilient communities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster get the Treasury to ringfence funding, in addition to the environmental land management budget, to support farmers to protect our villages, towns and cities through natural flood management? Farmers are also major victims of these storms, with crops and livestock tragically lost and equipment destroyed.
Tim Farron
Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ensure that resilience funding goes to the farmers who need it? Finally, will he meet the electricity companies to consider how they can improve the resilience of power lines?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions, and I echo his thanks to those who have helped so many over the past few days. He is right that these storms seem to be becoming more frequent. If he wants more money for flood defences, he of course must support the revenue raisers that go towards that money—I hope there will be consistency on that. I also echo his thanks to farmers for their efforts in difficult times such as these. We know they can be very hard hit by the kind of weather we have seen over the weekend.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
This weekend, Cumbria was hammered by Storm Éowyn. I must compliment the hundreds of local authority staff and contractors who worked day and night to deal with hundreds of incidents of fallen trees and damage to power lines and buildings, but I note that many of my residents are still waiting for power to be restored. Will the Government consider the eligibility criteria for the Bellwin scheme and whether it truly supports the emergency response costs, which will very likely run to seven figures for each of Cumbria’s two unitary authorities?
Pat McFadden
We do not have plans to revise the Bellwin scheme right now, but we are working very hard to restore power to people in my hon. Friend’s area and in any other area where power has still not been restored. A huge effort has gone into this work in recent days and hundreds of thousands of homes have been reconnected, but the worst of it is still in Northern Ireland, where some 60,000 are without power.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
My constituency was very significantly impacted by the storm, and we were just grateful there was no loss of life. That is why I was particularly sorry to hear about the young man in Mauchline; my condolences go out to his family. I pay tribute to all the emergency services, local authorities and everybody at ScottishPower who has done so much to restore the network—I will be even more grateful to them if they abide by their promise and get the village of Skirling back on the network tonight.
The one issue that has come up in this emergency, as in so many others, is the importance of contact with the elderly and vulnerable and of having an effective system for that contact. Inevitably, people who have not previously been identified do emerge. However, despite all the lessons from previous incidents, I do not believe we have a sufficiently effective system to identify the people who will be most in need in such circumstances.
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that contact with the elderly and the vulnerable is important. The priority services register is a pre-registration system for emergency events such as the storm, and I encourage anybody in that category who has not used it to register in advance. It gives the power companies much better information about exactly who is vulnerable in situations where the power is cut off.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I begin by paying tribute to all those across Hexham, including local authority staff and members of the community, who helped out during the storm. As the Government conduct the national resilience review, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the needs of our most isolated and rural communities are prioritised when considering these kinds of events, which are becoming far more common?
Pat McFadden
It is really important for our national solidarity that when the resilience review is published in the spring, it does exactly what my hon. Friend says: it must consider resilience in not only the urban areas, but the isolated areas, which can often be the hardest hit, and are often hit for the longest time, when we have such emergencies.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I offer my sympathies to everyone who has been severely affected by Storm Éowyn, and in particular those who have lost loved ones. I share the Minister’s acknowledgment of the work that has been and continues to be done in the aftermath of the storm. Huge thanks go to Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, the ScottishPower emergency network, our local authority, staff at Openreach, our road and rail teams and all the emergency services for the way they have handled and responded to this weather emergency.
I have a couple of specific questions. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the operation of battery back-up phones, which are replacing phones on the copper wire network, including whether they are effective in a power outage, particularly in places where the power is off for long periods of time? Make no mistake: this weather event was caused by climate change and is yet another warning—if one were needed—against rowing back on our net zero commitments. Will the Minister acknowledge that and redouble efforts to tackle carbon emissions in an effort to protect future generations from the most extreme scenarios that we might face?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is right to point out that as technology changes and phone technology changes, we must not end up increasing our vulnerability. It is really important that regulators and phone companies consider that as those changes go through. Our commitments to the energy transition remain as they were. It is a big priority for us to increase our energy security as we move through the coming years.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Over the past few days we have seen three notable things happen: Storm Éowyn has had tragic consequences; the CIA has announced that it thinks it is more likely that covid came from a Chinese laboratory than from animals—that is, it thinks it more likely that it was made on purpose; and the Russians, quite blatantly, put a spy boat in UK waters and the Defence Secretary announced in this place that we had deployed a nuclear submarine to surface nearby to see it off. Resilience is a huge topic. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that siloing resilience in the Cabinet Office, security in the Home Office and defence in the Ministry of Defence might not be the way to go in the future, and that we need to think of these things as very much connected?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right that those things are connected, but using the example of recent days, I can see advantage in the Cobra team’s role. Requests came in that involved help from several Government Departments. The important thing in a situation like that is that they are not just dissipated around Departments, but someone at the centre holds the ring, drives progress and makes sure it is pulled together. That is precisely the role the Cabinet Office and Cobra officials played in recent days. I believe there is value in someone holding the ring and driving progress in that way.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I add my tribute and thanks to the emergency services, core workers and care workers who were on the ground over the weekend, and to those providing welfare in our churches and halls of all creeds—the Orange halls and the Gaelic Athletic Association centres—which opened their doors for our local communities. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster mentioned that 60,000 properties are still without electricity, but more individuals are affected. Our pensioners, young people, mothers and children are still waiting for their power to be supplied, and some are still waiting for water to be reconnected to their homes as well.
I thank the Government for their assistance to the Northern Ireland Executive, but did the Chancellor, in his Cobra meetings, have the feeling that the Executive were prepared enough for what was coming, rather than simply asking the UK Government for assistance? When the statement says that the Northern Ireland Executive were asking for things like chainsaws, it concerns me that more could have been done by our Executive to prepare for what was coming.
Pat McFadden
Let me echo what the hon. Gentleman says about different parts of the community who opened their doors to help their neighbours—he is absolutely right about that. On the Northern Ireland Executive, I actually want to pay tribute to the role played by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Executive in recent days. As I said, we believe it was the worst storm to affect Northern Ireland since 1998 or thereabouts. This is an emergency and a time when people in different parts of the country should pull together. I was very happy to chair a Cobra meeting and do whatever else—other calls over the weekend—to make sure that we got as much help to Northern Ireland as quickly as we could to where it was needed. I will continue to do that over the next few days.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Whether our constituencies are rural or urban, the destruction that we saw last week should remind us of the need for urgent climate action. In the summer of 2021, my constituency experienced an extreme rainstorm, and homes in south Hampstead were invaded by water and raw sewage. One of my constituents, a recovering stroke victim, was left on the street with nothing but a small bag of belongings, and is now homeless. The same area was flooded in 2002 and in 1975, but no drainage improvements have been made. Can my right hon. Friend, who knows my constituency well, confirm that drainage infrastructure will be included in the Government’s resilience review?
Pat McFadden
I can certainly confirm that the risk of flooding and extreme weather events will be covered in the review. It is important that we publish a national risk register that is updated constantly: we published our latest version just 10 days ago. As climate changes—and, indeed, as terrorism and other threats change—it is especially important, when we are considering resilience and how we should prepare and protect the country, that we are not caught in the past but look to the way in which the world is changing.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
I echo the tributes to the emergency services and all those who have been out trying to keep people safe. It is particularly poignant for all of us on the Fylde coast who, each year, mark our police officers who have lost their lives rescuing people during stormy conditions. Two things are noticeable to those who visit Fylde: it is beautiful, and it is very flat. As it is a coastal constituency, that means that during storms, the wind reaches particularly high levels, while the water that is trying to get into the sea from the hillier parts of Lancashire slows down and does not leave the area so quickly, making it more prone to flooding.
I met representatives of the Environment Agency on Friday to discuss these issues in the midst of the storm. One problem concerns the pumping station at Lytham, which, like many others, has a funding allocation to pump water out to the river system when there is an immediate threat to life or residences but not necessarily when water is already backlogging on to farm and agricultural land across the area, which will cause further risks if that then creates a breach. May I ask two very brief questions? First, will there be a review of that funding from the Environment Agency. Can the Minister confirm the timelines for that? Secondly, when will the sustainable drainage systems legislation come into force?
Pat McFadden
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is beautiful and flat, and he is right to pay tribute to it. As for the funding for pumping stations or anything else, of course we want the right resources to be there, but I must gently say to Opposition Members that if they are going to call for more funding for things, they will have to support the revenue-raising measures that enable the Government to provide it. We cannot have a situation in which Members oppose every revenue-raising measure and then call for more funding in response to every statement.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Let me echo others in thanking the emergency services and the power companies for the job that they have done over the past few days, certainly in my constituency. We lost power in some areas for a while, and school buildings have been damaged and are being looked at as we speak. I welcome the review that the Minister mentioned, but will he look at safeguards within the emergency alert system? The current system might not be ideal for domestic abuse victims or those suffering from hearing impairments.
Pat McFadden
I gather that the first time the emergency alert system was tested, under the last Government, there was an effort to inform organisations that had contact with victims of domestic abuse, because we are aware of issues in that regard and we have to think as much as possible about who might be affected; but I think that, overall, the system has benefits. These alerts are not issued easily, and the latest was issued in response to a very rare red “danger to life” weather warning which affected the whole of Northern Ireland and most of the central belt of Scotland, as well as some other parts. We do not do this lightly, but when we do it, I think it is a useful system. However, if there are any lessons to be learned about how it is being used, of course we should learn them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his clear commitment to making things better. Northern Ireland and Strangford has been in the eye of the storm, and over the weekend it was incredible. There were whole villages with no electricity, including Ballywalter, Greyabbey and Kircubbin, as well as parts of Ards and parts of Comber and Killyleagh. Indeed, Killinchy is still without electricity. Trees are blocking roads all over the place, and there is no information about them being cleared. There are pensioners with no access to phone, light or heat, and many pensioners have gone up to 36 hours with no heat in their homes. Those pensioners, by the way, are prioritised by Northern Ireland Electricity for generators or some method of heating.
I thank all the workers who came out in the worst of the storm and who are working hard, but the NIE helpline —what a disaster. People have had to wait 45 minutes for replies and have got recorded messages. I think it started to improve only today—maybe yesterday—probably due to the intervention of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Executive. Has he had any discussions with the Executive about prioritising pensioners’ homes? The storm has left them incredibly vulnerable and wondering how to cope with the unknown. Waiting until 3 or 4 February to get the electric fixed is not satisfactory; that has to be sorted out. My people in Strangford want action right now, not on 3 or 4 February.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to outline the situation and the consequences for his constituents. I totally share his concern about the prospect of people being without power for 10 days—as I said in my opening statement, that is too long—and that is why we are trying to get as much help to Northern Ireland as quickly as possible to see whether we can reduce that time.
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the plight of pensioners, who will be vulnerable in this situation. We are getting as much help as we can to people on the ground. The engineers are working under difficult circumstances, and I support what they are doing, but we are here to help as much as we can with his constituents. It is Northern Ireland that has had the worst of the storm, and it is Northern Ireland where the focus of our help effort is concentrated.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
We have had terrible flooding in my constituency because of Storm Éowyn. As I drove through my home village of Bampton yesterday, I saw an elderly resident—Richard Hutter—desperately trying to pull up the drain so that the water could be taken from the high street. The wall between Withycombe and Rodhuish has fallen into the stream, so there is water all over the roads. At Exebridge, where the silt has not been taken out from under the bridges for years, there is flooding again—for probably the 10th time.
Nearly a decade of underfunding at the hands of the Conservative Administration, which oversaw a 45% cut in the local government settlement, has exacerbated subsidence, erosion and poor road conditions. That has had dangerous consequences, as we have witnessed over the past few days. I ask this question more in hope than in expectation: will the Government revise the funding mechanisms for local government to ensure that villages such as those in Tiverton and Minehead are better protected from future adverse weather?
Pat McFadden
My sympathies go out to the hon. Lady’s constituents—flooding is devastating for those who are affected by it—and I understand what she said about the consequences. I note what she said about funding. We have a better settlement for local authorities this year than they have had in recent years, but I must say to her what I also said to Conservative Members: all appeals for more funding, to be consistent, must be matched by consistent support for the revenue measures needed to raise that money in the first place.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, I thank the many workers who have worked tirelessly in treacherous conditions to restore power. I watched them on Saturday afternoon and Sunday. Equally, I give sincere thanks to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the work that he did. I know from speaking to the Deputy First Minister over the weekend and this morning before coming to the House that she was very pleased with the response, effort and commitment that he has shown to the people of Northern Ireland. That is an indication of how, by being part of the United Kingdom, we can draw on wider resources where there is willingness to do so.
However, there are still many people without power in Northern Ireland. Many people find it incomprehensible that some of the resources being sent to Northern Ireland are going to the Republic rather than being used in Northern Ireland. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster address that? An increase in the number of generators, people to fit them and so on would enable people who need machines for health and other reasons to have supply in their homes ahead of power being restored.
Pat McFadden
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Of course I take this seriously. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we want to do everything we can to get power restored for people who are without it. According to the latest figures I have seen, we have sent more than 100 engineers to Northern Ireland. That number will move. The electricity grids of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are physically linked, so sometimes it might make sense in connecting people to work on both sides of the border. We will respond as positively as we can to requests for generators to get help to people who need it.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I join others in expressing the appreciation of the whole community for the hard work in the most difficult circumstances of those who have been trying to reconnect us. I also join in the condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives, including the family of a young father just outside my constituency who lost his life in an incident with a generator. I know personally some of his close relatives, and the devastation is incredible.
On the issue of mutual aid, which is more than welcome, can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us who pays for it, ultimately? Does the Treasury pick up the bill, or is the bill for the engineers, generators, chainsaws and all the rest of it ultimately passed to the Northern Ireland Executive, who seem to have been pretty ill-prepared given that they have had to go looking for chainsaws?
Pat McFadden
I add my condolences to the family of the person the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to close to his constituency, and to the families of anyone who has lost their life as a consequence of what has happened in recent days. I have to be candid with him: when I have been discussing requests for help for people in Northern Ireland, I have focused not on arguing about the bill, but on getting the generators, engineers, helicopters and other help that is needed, because when people are without power, they want the help as quickly as possible.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Since we launched the plan for change last month, we have published the elective reform plan to get NHS waiting lists down and the AI opportunities plan so that the UK is a great home for AI investment and the Government make the most of this technology. The aim of the plan for change is to increase living standards, cut NHS waiting lists, boost energy security, give children the best start in life, make our streets safer, and build the houses that the country needs for the future. Just today, we have announced measures to stop repeated judicial review attempts from holding up major investment projects that are in the national interest.
Warinder Juss
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that the Government’s plan for change provides my constituents in Wolverhampton West with clear, measurable metrics against which they can hold the Government to account? This will help to restore faith in politics and politicians, and enable my constituents to see shorter hospital waiting lists, better living standards, safer streets, better and more housing and a better start for our children in school.
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for his question. I know his constituents well in Wolverhampton and he is right that a higher standard of living, lower NHS waiting lists, more housing and children getting a better start in life will be good for his constituents in Wolverhampton and good for constituents right around the country.
Michelle Welsh
Vibrant town centres are so important for the health of our local economies. Under the Conservatives, shop lifting was allowed to spiral out of control and we are still dealing with the consequences. Not too long ago, in Hucknall, a shopworker was brutally attacked. When I speak to local residents and businesses across Sherwood Forest, they tell me that this kind of antisocial behaviour has meant that they do not want to go out into town at night. Can the Minister confirm that the measures announced in the plan for change will deliver safer streets and be a boost to local economies?
Pat McFadden
I am very sorry to hear about the distressing attack on the shopworker in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Everyone should be free to go to work without the fear of being attacked while doing their job. I am pleased to say that, under this Government, assaulting a shopworker will be made a separate criminal offence. My hon. Friend is right to say that, on top of that, we need to do more to ensure that our town centres are safe. Restoring community policing with the additional police officers and police community support officers that we plan will enable all our constituents to visit their town centres and go about their business with peace and confidence.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I welcome the announcement on the judicial review proposals. The Government’s plan for change is an important endeavour, which will need not just Cabinet colleagues but civil servants to row in behind it. Is the Minister able to tell the House how he is marshalling and co-ordinating political and official activities to deliver that, and who will hold the circle to deliver across Government, rather than just in silos?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as he points out an important problem. Siloing is a traditional and difficult issue in our system. This is a plan for the whole of Government—right across Government. The Prime Minister has been very clear with the Cabinet that the goals and aims set out in the plan for change are key things to deliver over the next few years. They require a whole-of-Government machine, crossing departmental boundaries and ensuring that we are focused on outcomes for the public rather than on the processes, which sometimes detain us.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. The high streets have become almost a battlefield with shopkeepers trying to ensure that their goods are not stolen and that they are not attacked. In Northern Ireland, we had a problem similar to what the Minister has outlined and others have described. What helps is having CCTV in place, and a police force that is receptive and answers quickly to urgent requests for assistance. Has the Minister had any chance to talk to the Police and Justice Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that what has been done here can be replicated in Northern Ireland in such a way that we can all gain?
Pat McFadden
Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman speaks a lot of common sense. Wherever people are in the UK, they want the freedom to go about their business—shopping, work or whatever it is—in peace. We believe that some of those measures, such as CCTV, are important. So too is community policing. I am very happy to have a positive and constructive dialogue with the Administration in Northern Ireland and all the devolved Governments on these issues. Powers in these areas are devolved, but we share a common interest in protecting the public and ensuring that our streets and communities are safe.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
In recent weeks, in response to written parliamentary questions, the Cabinet Office has refused to commit to updating Parliament on the status of the targets in this plan; refused to publish information on the delivery board monitoring; refused to have an independent review and audit of the targets and to publish an annual cost analysis of them; refused to publish a risk register on meeting the targets; refused to publish an annual report; and refused to publish a public dashboard. At the same time, Ministers have been unable to explain how a series of targets in the plan will be measured, so will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain whether this a sign that his Department is being obstructive and evasive, or that the plan has not been thought through beyond the slogans?
Pat McFadden
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. If he wants to know what the targets are, I suggest that he reads the plan for change; they are set out very carefully in it. On the lists of processes, I said that we were focused on outcomes. That is why today we have announced reform of the judicial review process to stop repeated, and often lengthy and hugely expensive, actions that delay important investment projects that are in the national interest. I would have thought that he would have welcomed that.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The battle to ensure protection against cyber-attacks is constant and ongoing. I made a speech to the NATO cyber-defence conference a couple of months ago, and said that the Government are taking action to strengthen our cyber-security and protect our digital economy to deliver economic growth. Last week, we announced important proposals to protect UK businesses from ransomware, the most harmful cyber-crime, which can often cost a lot of money and do a lot of damage. Those measures will complement the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, which is being introduced this Session, to help to make the UK safer from cyber-threats.
Dr Gardner
Given the critical importance of closing the skills gap across the Government and defence sectors to safeguard against emerging threats in this digital age, which worry my constituents of Stoke-on-Trent South, what plans do the Government have to collaborate with organisations such as Code First Girls to develop a skilled and inclusive cyber-workforce, as highlighted in the artificial intelligence opportunities action plan?
Pat McFadden
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. The AI opportunities action plan gives us great opportunities and shows how seriously we take this matter. I know that organisations such as Code First Girls are doing important work providing free coding courses for women. I thank them for that. It is really important in pursuing this plan that we have the skilled people to do it. I am pleased to say that much of the cyber-security work in Government is led by outstanding women. We want more people with the right skills, so well done to Code First Girls, which we look forward to continuing to work with.
Kevin Bonavia
Between July 2023 and 2024, over 150 cyber-incidents were reported by the local government sector in the UK. Last year, the average ransom demand from a ransomware attack was over £2.2 million. As the local government sector does not pay ransoms, the average cost to our councils of recovering from a ransomware attack is approximately £12 million. Will my right hon. Friend therefore make additional support available to local authorities to enhance their cyber-security and protect local services for constituents such as mine in Stevenage?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the threat to local authorities. This is a whole-system threat. It can affect central Government, private businesses and local authorities. In October, my colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government launched the cyber assessment framework for local government, which sets a clear standard for the sector. They also provide monthly cyber clinics and support local authorities to improve collaboration, share intelligence and tackle common vulnerabilities. There has to be constant dialogue and a constant fight against this growing threat.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Ministers in this Department and in others have been generous in engaging with my repeated requests for engagement with Cheltenham’s cyber-security industry, where GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre are located. There is increasing evidence that having the private and public sectors co-located is important for our cyber-security sector. The Golden Valley development provides an opportunity to do that, and the Places for Growth scheme might give an opportunity for more public sector officials to be placed alongside one of our most influential cyber-clusters. Would the Minister be interested in having a meeting about that?
Pat McFadden
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for his relentlessness in raising those issues on behalf of his constituency. He is right to draw attention to the assets we have there—GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre—and I pay tribute to the officials working there. There is a benefit to clusters in people learning from one another and in being close by, and it all helps contribute to our efforts in this area.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Last year, the National Cyber Security Centre, located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), said that the Government were almost certain that Russian actors had attempted to interfere in the 2019 general election. We are clearly in a new era of politics. Trust in politics is at an all-time low; disinformation is on the rise; and following instances across the world of foreign interference in elections, it is essential that the Government make a plan to address this threat to democracy. It is vital that we take all possible steps to restore faith in politics to strengthen our political system, boost political engagement at home and protect our national democracy from external influences. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to safeguard the democratic processes of the United Kingdom from foreign interference?
Pat McFadden
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson makes some strong points. We have to take the protection of our democratic system and processes seriously. I outlined Russian activity in my speech to the NATO cyber-security conference a couple of months ago. We have to guard against it here and help other countries guard against it, too. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made very clear yesterday what we think of Russian interference in our waters, and the same applies in the cyber-sphere.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
As I set out in a speech last month, modern government is about not just what the Government want to do but reform of the state itself. We want to see public services that revolve around the needs of service users, using new technology in the best way possible to secure value for money and better outcomes for our citizens. We have launched a number of test and learn projects with local authority areas to get better results on difficult issues such as temporary accommodation. Just this week, we announced that we will launch a new gov.uk app in June, which will be a step change in fast and easy public access to Government services.
Pat McFadden
At the heart of what we want to do is improving living standards, outcomes and opportunities for all. One of the consequences of the long waiting times and waiting lists in the NHS in recent years is that it has been tougher on those who simply cannot afford to pay. It is therefore in the interests of good health and equal access to put in the investment that was announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, which is being taken forward in the plans announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The reform of public services and the reliance on artificial intelligence to deliver that led the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to pilot the Microsoft Copilot program. That pilot ended after six months, yet it demonstrated transformative improvements in departmental efficiency and was particularly beneficial for disabled and neurodivergent staff. Will the Minister confirm whether funding for that tool, which has been suspended until 2026, could be released so that staff could benefit from its application?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out the advantages that can come from these things. I am reluctant to make specific announcements about funding for specific projects. However, the Government are determined not only to make the UK a good home for investment in AI, which will be huge around the world in the coming years, but to make the best possible use of AI in the delivery of public services, which we believe can get good value for money and better outcomes for the public. The road will not always be easy, and there will be things that go wrong, but frankly, with our tradition of creativity and innovation, we want to grasp this technology and make the best use of it.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Since the last Cabinet Office questions we have set out the Government’s approach on public sector reform, published our response to module 1 of the covid-19 inquiry, updated the national risk register and launched our artificial intelligence opportunities plan. Just yesterday, alongside the Department for Work and Pensions, we introduced new legislation to deliver the biggest fraud crackdown in a generation, with greater powers for the Cabinet Office’s public sector fraud authority to retrieve some of the money that was lost during the last Administration.
David Davis
Quite properly, this week the Government have been talking about applying AI to improve efficiency and effectiveness across Whitehall. When a human civil servant—let us say at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or the DWP—makes a mistake and is challenged, they can explain their logic and how they came to the decision. We know that the courts always believe that computers are best and give the right answer, but AI makes mistakes—sometimes huge ones. Because of the way it is programmed, it cannot explain how it got to the decision. How will the Government ensure that the appeal process continues to work and we do not have a high-tech version of the Post Office scandal?
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The public inquiry into the Horizon scandal shows that blind faith in a computer system used in a court of law can lead to injustices. I do believe in the possibilities of AI, but it is important to keep the human element at all times. It will enhance human productivity but not replace it. That is the way we should go.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Given the news from Germany, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster update the House on the work the Cabinet Office is doing to prepare for the possibility of an outbreak of foot and mouth?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his question. Those of us of a certain age will remember the appalling consequences of the last serious outbreak of foot and mouth in the UK, more than 20 years ago. Let me say very clearly from this Dispatch Box that we are treating this with the utmost seriousness. I met with Cobra officials yesterday and have asked for several briefings since the outbreak in Germany, and my colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at a ministerial and official level are taking this very seriously as well. We know the threat that such an outbreak would pose to our farming communities, and we want to work with farmers and do everything we possibly can to protect them from it. So far, there has been no outbreak in the UK, but we will—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very important subject; I totally agree. The trouble is, in topicals, I have to get a lot of Members in. As this subject is so important, I would always welcome a statement on Monday.
Alex Burghart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Could he assure me that he is speaking to interested parties in Northern Ireland? Given that Northern Ireland is so closely connected to Ireland, which is part of the EU, farmers there are consequently very concerned that they may be affected by any spread of the disease. Will he therefore assure me that he is undertaking that work?
Pat McFadden
I will keep it short, Mr Speaker: we will ensure that we co-ordinate our response with all parts of the UK.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Pat McFadden
As I said in response to the shadow Minister, we take the threat of foot and mouth in particular very seriously. We want to work with our farmers and protect them. This is a matter of national security, but it is also a matter of making sure that Great British farming is not affected by the outbreak in Germany.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the increased funding for the devolved Government in Scotland as a result of the Budget. We are also putting more money into the NHS in England. He is right to say that when we ask the taxpayer to pay more, that should come with reform. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been clear about that, and I hope it applies elsewhere too.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence said recently that he would reduce the number of permanent civil servants at the MOD by 10% by the end of this Parliament. Will the Cabinet Office be larger or smaller at the end of this Parliament?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman has perhaps not been paying attention. We announced our programme to reduce the number of civil servants in the Cabinet Office just before Christmas.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
With impending decisions on airport expansions across the south of England, communities in my constituency, including Flamstead and Markyate, are very worried, not only because the evidence about economic growth is quite low but because the Climate Change Committee has said that the impact on the climate would be rather large. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will be listening to the Government’s own advisers and will have a UK-wide capacity management framework before any airport expansion?
Pat McFadden
There has been a lot of speculation in recent days. I would advise the whole House to not comment on speculation. If there is an announcement to be made, it will be made.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care met with colleagues on this issue. We believe the vaccine programme had great benefits for the UK, but there is a compensation scheme in place for cases where that was not the case.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
The Chancellor was right to go to China. It is an important economic relationship, but there is a security aspect, too. The National Security and Investment Act has an important role to play; it is there to safeguard critical areas of the economy. We keep it under regular review, and we will approach the relationship keeping both the security and economic interests of the country in mind.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, my constituency was hit by the worst snow in 15 years, leaving vulnerable and older residents, schools and GP surgeries blocked in by the snow. I commend the Barnsley council team, who were out 24 hours a day, eight days a week solid, but because resources are stretched, their gritters can cover only the council’s primary and secondary roads. Does the Minister agree that much more should be done to improve national resilience in extreme and exceptional circumstances where snow is prolonged by cold temperatures, by giving local authorities that cover rural areas such as mine increased gritting resources and access to snow ploughs?
Covid-19 Inquiry
Pat McFadden Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to module 1 of the covid inquiry. In July last year, Baroness Hallett published her report from the first module of the inquiry. It concluded that the UK was not as prepared as it should have been for the pandemic and that more could and should have been done. In my statement to the House immediately following the publication of her report, I committed to responding in full within six months.
Before I turn to the Government’s response, I want to place on record once again my thanks to Baroness Hallett and her team for the work they have done so far in the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the families and friends who lost loved ones during the pandemic, some of whom are with us in the Gallery. Earlier this week I visited the national covid memorial wall just across the river from here. I am grateful to the friends of the wall who have so lovingly cared for it and maintained it over the past few years.
As I said in my statement in July, the Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe. That is why since we were elected, we have taken steps to strengthen the UK’s resilience. I announced a review of national resilience. Work on that review is proceeding, and I will update the House on its conclusion in the spring.
The Prime Minister has established a single Cabinet Committee for resilience, which I chair, which meets to ensure clear and rigorous ministerial oversight. We have adopted the 2023 biological security strategy to protect the UK and our interests from significant biological risks.
In April, the new UK Resilience Academy will be launched. It will train over 4,000 people in resilience and emergency roles every year and help them plan for and manage a range of crises, including pandemics. I should also acknowledge, as I did in my first statement back in July, that in some areas these improvements build on work carried out by the previous Administration.
The improvements that we have made to our resilience have been put to the test over the last six months. Those include the Prime Minister chairing a number of emergency Cobra meetings to address the violent disorder that occurred over the summer and working across our four nations to anticipate and contain clade 1 mpox cases in the UK.
Since July, we have also sent two emergency alerts to provide advice to the public in life-threatening situations. During Storm Darragh, because of a very rare red—danger to life—warning, an alert was sent to over three million people in affected regions. More recently, we issued a very localised warning over flooding danger. The Government will carry out a full national test of the emergency alert system later this year. That will ensure that the system is functioning correctly, should it need to be deployed in an emergency.
The covid module 1 inquiry found that years of under-investment meant that pandemic planning was not a sufficient priority, that our health services were already suffering and beyond capacity, and that there were high levels of illness and health inequalities. All of that meant that the state was ill-prepared to manage a crisis on this scale. Therefore, apart from the specific recommendations, delivering on the Government’s missions—particularly in this context, building a national health service fit for the future—will contribute in important ways to the UK’s resilience.
Pandemic planning and resilience are about not just specific resilience measures but ensuring the underlying fundamentals of our country are strong. I thank the devolved Governments for their co-operation in preparing our response today. We will continue to work together for the safety of the communities we serve.
I turn to specifics. There are three new commitments that I wish to highlight. First, the inquiry recommended that the UK Government and devolved Governments should together hold a regular UK-wide pandemic response exercise. We agree and will be undertaking a full national pandemic response exercise later this year. It will be the first of its kind in nearly a decade. It will test the UK’s capabilities, plans, protocols and procedures in the event of another major pandemic. It will be led by senior Ministers, involve thousands of participants and run across all regions and nations of the UK. Alongside the Health Secretary, I have written to all Cabinet Ministers to ask for their commitment to full participation. The exercise will take place in the autumn over a number of days. The Government will communicate the findings and lessons of the exercise as recommended by the covid-19 inquiry.
Secondly, the inquiry found that the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and continues to affect many people in those communities. A new national vulnerability map created by the Cabinet Office with the Office for National Statistics will geographically map population numbers of those who may be vulnerable in a crisis. It will do that by sharing data including age, disability, ethnicity, and whether someone is receiving care. The map will improve the Government’s understanding of the scale and location of disproportionately impacted populations ahead of and during crises and enable targeted local support when required.
Thirdly, as the inquiry reminds us, the risks we face are changing more quickly than ever before, and we live in an increasingly volatile world. It therefore recommended a better approach to risk assessment across the board, which we accept. Today, I am publishing an updated national risk register: the public-facing version of the national security risk assessment, which provides businesses and the voluntary and community sectors with the latest information about the risks they face to support their planning, preparation and response. We will ensure that it continues to be updated regularly. A significant proportion of the risks will be subject to reassessment over the next few months, and we will publish a further updated risk register as needed once the process is complete.
I want to mention two further recommendations where the Government accept the underlying objectives and propose to take them forward in specific ways. First, the inquiry recommended Cabinet Office leadership for whole-system civil emergencies in the UK. We agree with that, as for whole-system emergencies such as a pandemic, the centre of Government needs to play a lead role. But for lower-scale emergencies, we believe that the lead Department model still has value. It remains important for Departments with the day-to-day responsibility for an issue to lead the work to identify serious risks and ensure that the right planning, response and recovery arrangements are in place. Therefore, in some circumstances we will retain the lead Government Department model, because, in those cases, responsibility and oversight should sit with the body with the best understanding, relationships and mechanisms for delivery to identify and address risks. There will be an enhanced role for the Cabinet Office to improve preparedness and resilience for larger-scale catastrophic risks.
Secondly, on the question of independent input into whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience, we agree with the need for independent strategic advice and challenge, including the use of so-called red teams. We are establishing eight expert advisory groups to combat group-think in our understanding of risks. Alongside that, through the crisis management excellence programme we will increase training in red teaming. We want to work with the local resilience forums that exist around the country who provide critical knowledge and expertise.
The Government are also committed to introducing a duty of candour on public authorities as a catalyst for a changed culture in the public sector to improve transparency and accountability. We also welcome and will draw on the expertise of multidisciplinary pandemic science institutes that provide world-leading academic and scientific expertise such as the excellent Pandemic Institute in Liverpool, which I was pleased to visit yesterday. In the end, the Government must remain responsible and accountable for the policy and resource allocation decisions they take, but we believe that the external input of those bodies can add value to that decision making.
The impact of the covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented in modern memory. It caused the loss of far too many lives. My thoughts, and the thoughts of the whole Government, continue to be with all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic. Many of them feel not just grief but anger that, as Baroness Hallett’s report sadly confirmed, the country was not as prepared as it should have been.
My Department will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to the covid-19 inquiry. In all this, we must remember that the next crisis may not be the same as the last. There is a need for flexibility in our planning and learning, and we will build that into what we do. The Government also remain committed to engaging fully with the inquiry, and await Baroness Hallett’s findings and recommendations in subsequent module reports as she continues her important work. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join his tribute to Baroness Hallett for her report.
We all know how challenging the pandemic was. Sadly, far too many lives were lost—I pay tribute to all the victims from across our country and the world. That is why the Conservative Government put in place the inquiry, and former Ministers have been co-operating with its work—I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for acknowledging that. It is clear from the inquiry’s investigations and findings so far that response times and processes were too slow and disjointed—we recognise that—but it is also clear that there was an incredibly challenging process and no easy answers.
Module 1 examined our country’s pandemic resilience and preparedness, so I will focus on that. The Government’s response has identified a number of overarching implementations from the module recommendations. We are broadly supportive of the Government’s direction. As the inquiry report notes, it is important to strengthen cross-governmental communication and data sharing, and communication and co-ordination between devolved Administrations. I appreciate that the Government recognise that and are taking forward the recommendation to ensure that the Cabinet Office has a clearer and stronger role in crisis and resilience co-ordination.
The Government have clearly signalled their intention to build on the work started under the last Government, who put together the resilience directorate within the Cabinet Office with the goal of ensuring clear accountability and leadership for long-term resilience and crisis planning. I hope that the steps that the Government have set out will successfully build on that. I am also thankful that they are building on the last Government’s work to lay the foundations of the resilience academy, and I look forward to tracking that progress.
It is important to note that the Government intend to strengthen the articulation of requirements for resilience and emergency training qualifications. I am thankful that they are building on the work that we implemented to establish a new national exercising programme, and are planning a full pandemic exercise for this year. Importantly, we need to recognise that the risks that we will face will be dynamic, because we do not know what the future will hold. I hope that the pandemic exercise will involve cross-cutting segments of microbial resistance and technology infrastructure, which will be key challenges that continue to grow in importance.
The Government have also emphasised the holistic work that can be conducted across all types of organisations as a result of the highly transparent risk register that we first published in 2023. I appreciate that they are setting out their intention to build on that, and offer a wider range of scenarios and frameworks to the register in future. However, they do not seem to fully recognise that there is far too much complication in the system, which risks masking fundamental matters of cross-governmental co-ordination with political measures. I recognise in the Government’s response the desire to ensure independent input into the whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience and, in doing so, establish a number of expert advisory groups, but I caution them that that must be backed up by real accountability and progress tracking, to ensure that the work conducted by those teams is enacted transparently and for clear reasons. They must not be just talking shops.
The Government have announced a significant number of reviews, consultations and taskforces, but without real accountability and framework clarity, they risk being only a temporary solution to long-term issues. That is a particular concern when it comes to national resilience. Although we support the Government’s direction, I want to raise a couple of questions. On recommendation 3, the Minister mentioned mapping, which is very welcome, but will he expand a little on the combined impacts of different vulnerabilities for certain groups and how they can be overlaid in that mapping process?
On recommendations 4 and 5 on the whole system emergency strategy and, crucially, that data element, is there data to support the strategy? What confidence does he have in that at the moment? Will he use the UK Biobank for that? There are critical issues around academic freedom as we look into very complex issues, and overlapping issues within communities across the country.
On recommendation 6, what response has the Minister had so far from the devolved Governments? He said that they have been very positive, but could he go a little further? In response to recommendation 9, the red groups sounded good, but I was a little worried when he said, “We are establishing eight advisory groups to combat group-think.” That sounds a little like a tautology. I want to ensure that those groups will be properly independent and that the Government are challenged on their plans. On recommendation 7, there was an important point around reporting back the findings of the nationwide investigations. On the publishing and timeliness, the report asked for three-month publications—will the Minister speak to that? The Cabinet Office said that it is scoping and testing solutions to resolve multi-agency reports. Will he speak to that?
Finally—thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—we must not lose sight of the fact that there are shifting landscapes, and our response will be a long-term thing. I appreciate the Government’s response today, but they have not yet responded to last year’s House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report on reforming the process by which public inquiries are conducted. That is slightly overdue, so if the right hon. Gentleman could update us on progress on that, I would be most grateful. We must ensure that the tracker is in place so that on issues such as this, the Horizon scandal or the infected blood scandal, we are always in the right place.
Pat McFadden
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s response and for his broad support for our response, including on the resilience directorate academy and the full pandemic exercise. Let me turn to his questions.
On mapping, the data is getting better. The Government’s ability to gather and use data has improved over time, and it is important that we do that as well as we can. Data has been described as the new oil, and it is important that the Government, which have access to good data around the country, use that to map vulnerabilities and to make sure that the next crisis does not expose cracks in our society, as was the case the last time around.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about work with the devolved Governments. Around those tables, people are not always of the same political party or outlook, but in my experience in the last six months, the spirit has been good and one of co-operation. It has been underpinned by the common understanding that, on an issue such as public protection, the public do not really care about political differences. They expect all of us, whatever our political stripe, to work together for their safety and the common good. That is what we should do.
Red teaming and challenge are important, but they have to be put into context. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned accountability; I said in my statement that accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions ultimately has to rest with the Government. We are all for challenge and all for independent input into that, but at the end of the day, that is where the accountability lies and that is who has to take the resource allocation decisions. We will publish the findings of the pandemic exercise. I want to see inquiries come to conclusions more quickly so that victims of injustices can get justice more quickly.
The final thing I say in response to the right hon. Gentleman is that he is right to say that the future may not be the same as the past; that is why flexibility has to be built into all this.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
While listening to my right hon. Friend’s statement and the shadow Minister’s response, I have been reflecting on those friends who sadly died during the pandemic. I am sure everybody in the House will have their own experiences.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the need for a new national pandemic planning exercise. After the last one, one of the press reports suggested that a recommendation was for senior Ministers to act quickly if a pandemic hit us. Can he confirm that one of the ways in which improvements will be made in our preparation on his watch will be that senior Ministers will be ready and will make decisions in a timely fashion?
Pat McFadden
That will all be tested in the exercise we have planned. Past planning exercises have sometimes planned for the wrong thing—that is the danger. That is why I say all the time that we have to make sure that we learn from what happened throughout the pandemic of a few years ago, but not make the assumption that the next pandemic or the next crisis will be exactly the same. That is what we have to do.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The findings of the inquiry are a harsh confirmation of what we already knew. They are that the UK was woefully unprepared for the pandemic: the focus was wrong, the leadership was lacking and the lessons from past crises were not learned. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that our hearts remain with those who lost loved ones during that tragic time, and I thank the family members who are in the Public Gallery today.
To do right by them, crucially, we must ensure that this is a turning point. It is essential that the new Government take swift and decisive action to prepare for next time. I therefore welcome the Minister’s announcement of a pandemic response exercise this autumn; however, will that be a one-off or are further exercises planned and, if they are, how frequently?
As well as the different, more proactive approach to disease outbreak preparedness that Baroness Hallett cites in her report, we must invest in public health, rather than simply throwing money at crises when they materialise. One of the key findings is that health inequalities and a less healthy population has left the nation less resilient. Does the Minister agree that public health should be a priority and that the public health grant, with a proportion set aside for those experiencing the worst health inequalities to co-produce plans for their communities, would be a step in the right direction?
We need to help more people live more years of their life in good health. When I think back to those covid years, I think of the appalling loneliness and isolation of those in hospital or in care homes. Do the Government agree that patients and care home residents should be given a new legal right to maintain family contact in all health and care settings?
Finally, on resilience forums, will the Minister confirm what funding plans there are in future for resilience forums? I was aware before Christmas that there was some lack of certainty about that—certainly, that is what I was hearing from my own Sussex resilience forum. We cannot risk our country not being ready for the future, and those are important questions.
Pat McFadden
The most fundamental thing, apart from specific recommendations or specific changes, is the underlying strength of the country and its services. That is true nowhere more than in the national health service. That is why the Budget, which has been attacked a lot, put in the resources to begin to turn the health service around. We can have the forums, the structures and the processes, but the underlying strength of the country is the most important thing.
The hon. Lady asked about the exercise this autumn. I very much hope it will not be the last; the inquiry recommended that they happen on a regular basis. It will be the first for many years and we want to make sure we learn as much from it as possible. In terms of funding for local resilience forums, they play an important role and we were able to put some increased resources into local government in the next financial year. That area, like others, will have to be considered in the round in the spending review that will be published later this year.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I am less sanguine about the report than my right hon. Friend. The report, or what is part of a report—it is difficult to assess when we do not know what the rest will say—has been too expensive and has taken too long to produce. From reading it, it does not seem to me to include some of the fundamental questions that I and my constituents would like answered. What was the cost-benefit analysis of the decisions taken during lockdown, for instance? What about lockdown itself? Was that a benefit or a disbenefit? What was the cost of effectively closing down the NHS, apart from for covid patients? Where did the virus come from? Did it come from China, which most of the evidence seems to indicate? Those questions are not being answered. Furthermore, I do not believe that setting up a new quango in conjunction with the Cabinet Office, which has no experience of service delivery, will be the answer to any future epidemic. The report does not answer the questions I would like answered.
Pat McFadden
I hope my hon. Friend does not think I am sanguine; I am not sanguine at all. Anyone who reads the national risk register should not be sanguine because, as I said in my statement, we live in a world of risk and vulnerability. As for the inquiry’s work, the inquiry is independent and is not instructed by the Government on the specific areas it goes into. It has 10 modules, as decided by the inquiry because it is independent.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) by expressing concerns about the inquiry? The Minister has been clear that he wishes it was not taking quite so long. It is taking far too long.
What can we learn from other countries about how they have conducted their lessons-learned exercise, in order to make sure that the people watching the proceedings, who lost their loved ones, feel that something has been done, and done in good time? This is by no means the first public inquiry that has taken too long. The right hon. Gentleman is in the great position of not being responsible for setting up the inquiry. Will he set out what he thinks we should learn from failed and lengthy inquiries to make sure we do these urgent lessons-learned exercises much more quickly? The next emergency could strike tomorrow. We do not have time to hang around and have these long, blame-fest inquiries with criminal lawyers asking “gotcha” questions to get headlines.
Pat McFadden
The shadow Minister, in his response, also asked about the general question of inquiries. I believe there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether there can be a quicker way for the state to admit when it is wrong and get justice for the victims. However, it is important that in the processes we set up we do not lose the valuable question of independence and the valuable capacity these inquiries have for the victims to have a voice, which has sometimes been denied in other areas. We have to have a system where the state can admit when it gets things wrong and which gets justice for those who have felt the consequences of that.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I was a cabinet member during covid, responsible for public health. As I listened to my right hon. Friend’s statement, I felt so relieved that we are about to replace the chaos experienced by me and so many people across the country at that time with a forward-looking, orderly and strategic approach. Among the many things that have been mentioned, I was particularly pleased by the idea of creating a national vulnerability map. That is hugely needed. On hearing that the Department will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to the inquiry, will my right hon. Friend come to the House regularly to update on that implementation?
Pat McFadden
This is just module 1; there are other modules to be published, and I will update the House in some form when the Government respond to those. Of course, on top of that there are regular opportunities to question me and the Ministers in the Cabinet Office either at oral questions or in front of Select Committees.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I associate myself with the observations of the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). The fact is that we have an absolutely urgent imperative to address the dysfunctions of the British state that were exposed by the covid inquiry. I agree with everything that has been said about how bad things were in early 2020. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the importance of a stronger centre and a more accountable Cabinet Office— I think that is the right direction to be going in. However, does he also recognise that the parts of our society that did not fail in 2020 were the parts very far from Whitehall—local government, the private sector and our communities themselves? Does he agree that while the focus needs to be on improving Whitehall’s response, we also need to think about the resilience of local communities and ensuring that they can play their part in the next crisis?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. My experience in Wolverhampton, which I represent, was that the local authority did a great job of looking out for vulnerable people. An inquiry, perhaps by definition, places the emphasis on things that went wrong, but there was a great deal of experience during the pandemic that showed the best of society, with people looking out for one another and helping those who were vulnerable. We should draw on the things that went well, as well as those that went wrong.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
In my previous role in health scrutiny in Lancashire, I got a bit fed up of hearing from Conservative politicians that no one could have seen covid coming, as if a global viral pandemic had not been top of the NHS risk register for years, and as if epidemiologists had not warned authorities that it was a matter of when, not if. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a disgraceful abdication of responsibility for the former Government to plead ignorance to the well-known risk of a global viral pandemic?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. There is always a risk of planning for the wrong thing, which is a risk I am very aware of as we try to do this forward-looking exercise. I was encouraged by what I saw yesterday in Liverpool at the Pandemic Institute, where the scientific expertise that we have in this country is trying to take the learning from that in the past and ensure that we do not assume that the next situation will be the same as the one we went through several years ago. It might be something similar, but it might also be something very different, which is transmitted differently and creates a whole different series of questions and requirements for the Government of the day.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I am delighted to hear that relations with the devolved Administrations are now on a collegiate basis. I have to say that my experience as a lowly special adviser with the Scotland Office at the tail end of the pandemic was nothing like that at all; it was very, very difficult. We faced constant battles with the Scottish Government, who wanted to put their oar into areas that really were nothing to do with them and constantly wanted change for the sake of change. I am therefore relieved to hear that the Cabinet Office seems to be taking a lead in this. Heaven forfend we face another situation like the covid pandemic, but we probably will. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that we will have a chain of command that makes it clear who is in charge, which must be this sovereign Parliament?
Pat McFadden
I said that co-operation was good on this issue. Of course, we live in a world where that might not always be the case on everything. However, I do think that, when it comes to public protection, people should leave their politics at the door and ask themselves just one question: how do we protect the public and get the country through this?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vulnerable groups to pandemics. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. One of the most striking conclusions of the covid inquiry was that it was the most vulnerable people in our society who were hardest hit, whether that was because they had pre-existing health conditions or because they were on some of the lowest wages in this country. Will he tell the House what steps are being taken to ensure that, in the event of another incident of this nature, support reaches the most vulnerable people in our communities much more quickly than during the covid pandemic?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right. Cracks in our society were exposed; this did not affect all parts of society equally. We have to learn from that and respond to it. The very concept of having a society should mean that in an emergency we pull together and try to overcome it together. The map we are producing will help us somewhat in identifying where those risks are. However, as I said in my statement, the most important thing is the underlying strength of the country and its institutions, and, in this context, specifically that of the national health service itself.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
In Cheltenham, in Sandford Park, we have an avenue of trees that were planted in honour of the covid heroes and the many victims that our town lost during the pandemic. Not far from there, there is a playground, and that playground was shut. There is nothing more dystopian for children than seeing the playground that they cherish shut. Children do not often have a voice in these kinds of discussions. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the next time there is a pandemic, we will take a much more reasonable approach to risk, as raised in the module, and that children will have a bigger voice, so that they will not suffer the mental health problems that we know so many have suffered as a result of the pandemic?
Pat McFadden
This is something the inquiry intends to look at in the future, but let us state the obvious: parents of young children in a flat with no outside space had a very different experience of the covid pandemic compared with someone with a nice big garden. That is true. I totally understand the public health decisions that were taken, but they did not affect everybody equally. That is something to ponder for the future.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. To be honest, as a former public health consultant, I looked on in amazement at what happened during the pandemic. I therefore welcome the fact that the report acknowledges and recognises that Exercises Alice and Cygnus were ignored, that that contributed to our lack of preparedness, and that we had a declining national health and exacerbating health inequalities.
Another point that was raised in the report, and in the film “The Unequal Pandemic”, was the fact that there was such low awareness around the functions of public health, which were being reinvented at the centre. None of the legislation and regulations on public health protection were known. I have heard that reported back from directors of public health, who went into Cobra meetings where there was a total absence of understanding of basic legislation in this regard. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me on the relationship between the centre and local public health teams, which were decimated because there was such a lack of understanding of public health as a whole, but particularly about their health protection role, and that this issue of reinventing the wheel will not happen again?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I specifically mentioned local resilience forums in my opening statement for good reason. As I said a moment ago, I think it is really important that we recognise that, in an emergency, the centre, local government and the devolved Governments have to work together in the best interests of the public. I endorse what she said, as I have said a few times today, about the importance of the underlying strength of our health system in such an emergency.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I want to begin by saying that although the loss of every single life is of course tragic—and I saw that at first hand when volunteering—it is important to note that, despite repeated political attacks at the time suggesting that we had the worst death rate in Europe, now when we look at the figures properly we see that we actually had a lower death rate than Spain and Italy, and that we were broadly in line with Europe. I caution against diminishing the results of a national effort, which was actually broadly in line with other countries, in a desire to make political attacks on the Conservative party.
As exhaustive as the inquiry’s proposals for things to look at is, to my mind I see a big gap which relates to the decision making of MPs. The inquiry does not seem to cover that. Those of us on the Government Benches—equally, it could be said of those on the Opposition Benches—were often faced with very difficult votes that were expected to go down to the wire and were asked to make very difficult decisions. MPs’ access to independent advice and scientific briefings was nowhere near like it should have been. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not part of the current inquiry, can he at least accept that it is a task for the Cabinet Office to think how we can better equip MPs with the information they need to make decisions on important votes of that nature?
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service to the public during the pandemic, and anybody who worked or volunteered in the NHS or in other ways for what they did. Of course, MPs and the Government must have access to the best information they can, but I remind him of something else I said in my opening statement. In the end, the accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions lies with the Government of the day. I do not say that in a partisan way. It is important to establish it as an understanding of how we deal with these things in future.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I pass the national covid memorial wall every day on my way to this place. It and the inquiry are a reminder of what happens when Governments get things wrong. I absolutely welcome the announcement of a national pandemic response exercise later this year, but the inquiry found that a similar exercise took place in Scotland under the control of the Scottish Government before the pandemic, and that they failed to implement its conclusions. First, can the Minister reassure us that any outcomes from such an exercise will be reported to this House and that we will have oversight of the implementation of any recommendations? Secondly, I know it is outside the remit of the Minister’s statement, but can he give us an update on the recovery of any money lost through dodgy contracts to the mates of the previous Government?
Pat McFadden
Let me repeat the praise I gave to the volunteers who maintain the national covid memorial wall. Hon. Members may not be aware of it when they look at the red hearts, but over time they fade—they fade to pink. The reason they are kept red is that there is a group of volunteers down there overpainting the hearts to make sure that the wall does not fade away and that the memory of the names recorded does not fade away. The conclusions of the national pandemic exercise will be reported. Predictions are a dangerous game, but let me make one: there will be things that go wrong. Shortfalls will be exposed and not everything will go right, but that is part of the purpose of doing an exercise like this. I am happy to assure him in terms of learning from it and the conclusions.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also completely agree with him that in these matters the public do not care about party political differences. I note his commitment to an independent, whole-systems civil preparedness and resilience process going forward. I am just looking for some reassurance that the devolved Governments will be consulted and fully involved. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I want to press the Minister on recovery from some of the very wasteful PPE contracts that were awarded during the pandemic.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member will know that we have appointed a covid fraud commissioner to try to recover as much as possible of the money that went wrong. I have sought not to be partisan today, but I do believe that the systems in place were wrong, and that there were some abuses and a significant loss of money. When we are in a situation where we want value for money for the public, we want to recover as much of that as possible. I repeat that relations with the devolved Governments on this kind of issue have been good so far. I hope it is the case that that is maintained through the national pandemic exercise that we are planning.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
We all lived through the pandemic, and we all came to see the immense value of our key workers: the bus drivers who had to continue to make essential journeys; the carers who had no choice but to continue to provide close-quarters care; and the posties, some of whom I met recently in Welwyn Garden City at their delivery depot on Bessemer Road. They told me that when they had socially distanced conversations on the doorstep with lonely residents, it was often the only human interaction they had all day. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister reaffirm how important the Government believe the role of key workers is, and that, critically, for the next pandemic we have measures in place to make sure they are protected and supported?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Let me echo his praise for all the key workers he mentioned. When the chips were down, we found out who was keeping the country going. Let me, from this Dispatch Box, thank each and every one of them for what they did to keep the country going during those very difficult times.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Minister, quite rightly, expresses sympathy for the victims of covid-19, which is something we all share, but he has not mentioned anything about the victims of covid-19 vaccines, of whom there are thousands. We know that those people did the right thing and took the vaccines, but they were not warned of the risks. The Minister has been talking about risk assessments. There was a lack of risk engagement, and now we find that the compensation scheme, the vaccine damage payment scheme, is in place but not operating effectively or fairly. The Health Minister keeps talking about possibly amending it, but every time he mentions that it causes immense harm to all those who are still suffering as a consequence of having done the right thing and taken the covid-19 vaccines, when many of them now wish they had not.
Pat McFadden
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe the production and distribution of the vaccines was one of the things that went well and which this country contributed to, and that the availability of vaccines helped us to overcome the pandemic. In those cases where there were adverse reactions, there is a scheme in place, as he said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has met people affected. Of course, we want to help people affected through the kind of scheme that exists.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
First, I thank the Minister for commenting on the importance of multidisciplinary research. From my own previous research, I know that that is very important, particularly in the development of AI algorithmic risk prediction models. I also had the pleasure yesterday of speaking to Professor Tom Solomon, the director of the Liverpool Pandemic Institute, which the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee had the pleasure of visiting recently. He impressed on me the value of physician researchers in conducting groundbreaking research. Does the Minister agree that it is vital we provide the time and funds to researchers such as Professor Solomon to help build our national resilience to future pandemics?
Pat McFadden
Let me echo my hon. Friend’s praise for Professor Solomon and the work that he and the Pandemic Institute are doing. He is right to underline the value of research, as is my hon. Friend. As has been pointed out throughout these exchanges, the next crisis that the country faces may be very different from the last, so it is important that we use one of this country’s great assets, its tremendous research institutes and research capability, to scan the horizon as well as we can and to be as well prepared as we possibly can.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Having served on the frontline during covid, I am acutely aware of the sacrifices made by clinicians, patients and staff. However, when it comes to preparing for any future pandemics, part of the solution is ensuring that we have robust epidemiological research. Could the Minister tell us, in rather more granular detail, what assessment he has made of the current projects commissioned by the Government?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman is right about the need for robust research. I do not analyse the research projects one by one, but I thank him for his service, and underline what I have said a few times today: the best insurance that we can have in responding to another crisis like the one that we went through some years ago is the underlying strength of the country and the NHS. That is why we have made the decisions to put resources into the NHS to help to turn it around and make it stronger in the future than it is today.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I spent the pandemic as a trade unionist at the TUC, supporting Frances, now Baroness, O’Grady in her fight for the rights to safety of working people. The covid inquiry heard time and again about the impact of the pandemic on those with low wages and insecure work—people who had to go into work even when it was not safe because otherwise they could not feed their families, and who were disproportionately from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Will the Minister ensure that the new national vulnerability map treats insecure workers as vulnerable for the purpose of crisis planning and resilience, and will he ensure that the unions are key stakeholders in building that resilience in the UK?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to underline the need to thank the key workers, many of whom were low paid and many of whom did come from ethnic minority backgrounds. They kept the country going, and sometimes had to put themselves at risk to help and protect the rest of us. I thank my hon. Friend and those who represent working people for the work that they did during the pandemic.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
May I ask about the specifics of the Government’s response to module 1? I was interested to hear about the national vulnerability map, which could help with a range of matters including digital exclusion as well as public health, but let me ask the Minister two questions. First, has he taken into consideration the findings of Chris Whitty’s 2021 report on coastal communities and their specific vulnerabilities? Secondly, while this is obviously a hugely valuable undertaking, I do not want us to create a one-trick pony, so could the Minister try to seize the big opportunity to build a better system for storing and using citizen data that could benefit everyone and give all sorts of people the support that they need when they need it?
Pat McFadden
As I said a while ago, data has been described as the new oil, and there are good reasons for using it. The Government and the state have a duty to try to use data to secure the best outcomes for the public, and one example is using it to map our vulnerabilities. I have been praising people for what they did during the pandemic, so let me now praise Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, for what he did then and what he continues to do today. The country is very lucky to have him, and I thank him for everything that he does.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a source of national shame that our country was so underprepared for the covid pandemic, and the Conservatives need to take their fair share of the responsibility for that. We all worry about where the next pandemic will come from, and I am particularly concerned about the risk posed by dengue fever. For those who are not aware of it, let me explain that it is a disease spread by mosquitoes. It has been travelling closer and closer to the UK in recent years owing to rising temperatures and climate change, and has most recently been found in Paris. As one who represents a constituency on the south coast, I am especially worried about the warning that it could be within the UK within years. There is currently no cure, but there is a vaccine going through trials thanks to international collaboration, of which our country is a part. May I ask what steps the Government are taking to improve our preparedness for the next pandemic, wherever it may come from and however it may be transmitted?
Pat McFadden
One of the risks that we face is posed by mosquito-borne diseases—viruses of various kinds. The UK Health Security Agency monitors such diseases so that we have the most up-to-date information possible. This is a good example of scanning the horizon and understanding that the next crisis we face may not be the same as the last.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I agree with other Members who have said that this inquiry is taking too long, costing too much and, in many cases, not asking the right questions. The results of the previous pandemic response exercise some nine years ago, Operation Cygnus, were so shocking that they were kept from this House and the British people. Will the Minister commit that the results of the pandemic exercise later this year will be transmitted totally openly, with full transparency, to this House and the British people?
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Member for his two questions. I have said what I said on the speed of the state’s admission when things go wrong. We do need to think about that and look at it. As for the results, the findings of the exercise will be made public, and let me repeat my prediction: they will probably show things that have gone wrong and areas where we need to improve. Anyone who carries out such an exercise and does not expect that will face a nasty surprise.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
One of the positives we saw during the covid pandemic was an outpouring of neighbourliness. Churches and faith communities played a key role in mobilising support for those most in need, delivering meals, shopping and prescription medications to those who were advised to stay at home. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all those volunteers and assure the House that faith communities and other community organisations will be involved in the local resilience forums, so that they are integral to both the resilience planning and incident response?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: many of these efforts showed the best of us and how much people were prepared to look out for one another. I was really touched by the efforts of the Sikh gurdwaras in Wolverhampton in distributing food to people of all faiths and none, and of other faith groups and community groups who did similar things to help the most vulnerable people during the pandemic.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I want to pay my respect to all those we have lost, and I give my heart to those who have lost loved ones and have to live their lives without them. In Bassetlaw, I have met many families who have needlessly lost loved ones. My good friend Pete Armitage died on 6 April 2020 in hospital, unable to breathe, without his wife by his side, and with only six of us at his funeral.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the volunteers who stepped up and went out, without any fear for their own health or their lives, to deliver food, to stand on vaccination lines and to help at local food banks. I want to ensure that we in Parliament never forget those names. I pay tribute to them, and I ask the Minister to do the same.
Pat McFadden
In my final answer of the afternoon, let me warmly endorse what my hon. Friend said on both counts. Let us remember all those who lost their lives and give thanks to the many relatives and friends who are keeping those names alive and trying to make sure that we learn the lessons from what happened in the past. Let us praise all the volunteers who helped people in any way. It was a very tough time in this country and others, but those efforts—that reaching out—showed the best of us, and we should not forget it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The Government’s five missions offer real benefits to people living in every part of the country: higher living standards, more energy security, safer streets, lower waiting lists, and a renewed confidence that the future will be better for our children. We have already made progress, including launching a national wealth fund, providing an additional £22.6 billion for the NHS over the next couple of years, launching a new border security command, providing £1.4 billion more for school rebuilding and removing the de facto ban on onshore wind farms. The Prime Minister will unveil his plan for change later this morning, which sets out how we will deliver further on our missions over the next few years, and I am due to give a statement to the House on that matter later this morning.
Rebecca Smith
How will the Prime Minister’s five mission boards learn from the clear lack of join-up between the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over the family farm tax and the family business tax to ensure that they do not become five mission silos?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady is right to say that one of the benefits of missions is to work across departmental boundaries. That has been tried many times and is difficult to do, but I believe that farmers and people in rural areas will benefit from greater energy security, from lower waiting lists in the NHS, from rising living standards, and from the other things that are at the heart of our missions.
Andrew Cooper
Too many children face barriers to opportunity. Their life chances are being held back by rationed access to mental health support and diminished by a system that does not do enough to support those with special educational needs and disabilities. What action can be taken on a cross-Government basis to increase the availability of mental health support to cover 100% of schools, so that we can achieve our vital mission to break down barriers to opportunity?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. He will be aware that we have announced extra funding for special educational needs. That issue is rising up the agenda and is causing a lot of anxiety for parents throughout the country. At the heart of our missions is making sure that a greater proportion of young children are ready to start school, because if that is not the case, it can hold back their opportunity for the rest of their lives.
Richard Baker
With GB Energy headquartered in Scotland and the Methil yard in my constituency—a fantastic facility to build the renewables infrastructure we will need—how is my right hon. Friend ensuring collaboration across Government and with the Scottish Government, to deliver the mission for growth through investment in renewables?
Pat McFadden
As my hon. Friend says, we have made good progress in setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, including announcing that its headquarters will be in Aberdeen. This transition to clean power offers huge economic opportunities for the whole UK. I am glad to report to the House that co-operation between the Scottish Government and the UK on this matter has been good, and this is at the heart of our clean energy mission.
Melanie Onn
Can the Minister give us some indication on the timeline for GB Energy? When does he expect it to be up and running at full capacity? Does he think there is any opportunity to incorporate green skills to support new jobs in areas such as North East Lincolnshire, Grimsby and Cleethorpes?
Pat McFadden
In just five months, the Government have made progress in setting up Great British Energy. We have announced £25 million to establish the company, with a further £100 million of capital funding to spend in the next financial year. We have announced the partnership with the Crown Estate and selected the chair, Juergen Maier. As I said a moment ago, we have chosen Aberdeen as the location for the headquarters.
As for the next steps, more information on Great British Energy’s early priorities will come in the new year from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. That will support skills development across the country, including in the Humber, which is at the absolute forefront of the UK’s net zero ambitions and is home, I am pleased to say, to several groundbreaking renewable energy projects, which we support.
Andrew Ranger
A recent report by the Social Mobility Foundation showed that on average people from working-class backgrounds are paid an incredible £6,000 less than their privileged peers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour’s opportunity mission will be critical to ending that damning statistic and finally smashing the class ceiling that enables it?
Pat McFadden
We firmly believe that, whoever someone is and wherever they come from, Britain should be a country where hard work means they can get on in life, and that their circumstances of birth should never dictate their future. The reality for too many children in Britain today is that that can be the case—that opportunity can be limited—and our opportunity mission is aimed at breaking that link. We will roll out Government-funded childcare to support improved access, delivering on the funded hours expansion and on the Government’s manifesto commitment to create 3,000 more school-based nurseries, increasing the availability of childcare places where they are needed most. As I said, we want to get a greater proportion of children ready to start school when they walk into primary school for the first time.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Stepping Hill hospital in Hazel Grove is reported to have a repairs backlog of £130 million. The people on waiting lists, which have been elongated by this repairs backlog, are police officers, teachers and nurses, thereby making it more difficult for the Government to deliver on any of their other missions. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that due weight is being given to reducing NHS waiting lists, so that all the other missions can be achieved?
Pat McFadden
We announced an extra £22 billion for the NHS over the next couple of years in the recent Budget. I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that reducing waiting times is at the heart of our missions, because current waiting times are bad for people’s health and bad for our economy.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to face the right hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box for what I believe is the first time. I am pleased to see three members of the Cabinet on the Front Bench—it is quite right that the Cabinet Office should be so well reflected.
The day after he entered Downing Street, the Prime Minister pledged to personally chair each mission delivery board to drive through change. We now hear that he is not chairing each mission delivery board. Why has the Prime Minister broken his pledge?
Pat McFadden
Let me begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his position; I look forward to our exchanges. He is also the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so I hope his party leader will be giving him a Christmas bonus for productivity and hard work—he will certainly deserve it.
The Prime Minister is very engaged in the delivery of these missions, and meets for missions stocktakes regularly with the Secretaries of State in charge. That is the benefit of having this kind of programme: the Prime Minister can personally hold Secretaries of State to account and ensure they are all focused on delivery of the Government’s priorities.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman is right: as the holder of two shadow portfolios, I get double the money. [Laughter.] I am sorry not to hear an explanation for why the Prime Minister has gone back on his word. There are growing concerns that the mission delivery boards are not being taken seriously. Those concerns were felt by members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday, when the right hon. Gentleman’s very capable permanent secretary said that
“the governance and the wiring of how we do this might not be immediately observable”,
which is a masterful piece of civil service phraseology if ever there was one.
These boards are not Cabinet Sub-Committees, which means they are not authorised to make policy. The Prime Minister is not there, so his authority is absent. The Government will not reveal who is on them, what they discuss or when they meet. They are starting to sound like figments of the Government’s imagination—a litter of Schrödinger’s cats. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least commit to regular published updates on what each of the boards is doing, who sits on them, what decisions they make, what work they are undertaking and what achievements they have achieved?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman is going to get a published update in a couple of hours, when he will receive a very full account of what the boards have been doing, how they have been prioritising their work and what the next steps are. He is a former Cabinet Office Minister, so he will know that one of the wonderful things about the Cabinet Office is that it does a great deal of work under the bonnet—sometimes not in the full gaze of publicity—and that that is the privilege of all of us who have served in the Cabinet Office. That is true of this work. However, we are publishing a very important update later this morning.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Genomics is a great British success story, and our genomics databases are vital for world-leading life sciences and health research. The organisations that have such databases have to provide data protection and security training, and have to make sure that researchers can access data only for approved purposes. The opportunities come with risks, which is why the Government will always try to minimise the risks of biological data to protect our bio-economy. We are working on this issue across Government Departments and through our national security structures.
Mr Carmichael
I take it that genomics databases will not be designated as critical national infrastructure, then, which was the question. As the Government seek to reset the relationship with China, will Ministers be mindful of the old maxim that you need a long-handled spoon to sup with the devil, and of the fact that Chinese genomics companies such as BGI do not behave as normal commercial competitors? Will the Secretary of State ensure that the interests of British genomics are not left vulnerable as a consequence of any reset relationship?
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Member asks a very important question about the twin interests of national security and economic growth. In this territory, we work with UK organisations that hold genomic data to make sure that they have robust data protection systems in place, and our security services give them advice on these matters on a regular basis, so that our pursuit of growth does not conflict with our very important national security objectives.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe, which is why national resilience is a top priority for us. In July, I announced that I would lead a review of resilience, and work has been progressing across Government. We have engaged at all levels with the public, private and voluntary sectors, and this work is overseen by the dedicated resilience sub-committee of the National Security Council, which I chair. It is also closely linked to our consideration of the covid inquiry module 1 report, to which the Government will respond next month—within the six-month timeframe set out by the chair of the inquiry.
Richard Foord
The module 1 report recommended resilience and preparedness, and particularly
“Bringing in external expertise from outside government and the Civil Service to…guard against ‘groupthink’”.
How is the Minister planning to bring in that external expertise? Would he consider issuing a brochure to British citizens on preparation for crises, as the Swedish Government have just done?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member raises an important point. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), has done a great deal of work on consulting people outside Government—external experts across business, the voluntary sector, local government and so on. It is really important that, as part of this, we hear voices not just from Whitehall but from beyond, too.
Ashley Dalton
The module 1 report of the UK covid-19 inquiry has found that the impact was most acutely felt by the most vulnerable—the elderly, those with pre-existing health conditions, people living in overcrowded housing, and those on low incomes. As the Government undertake their review, can the Minister assure the House that they will work to deliver resilience for everyone, not just some of us?
Pat McFadden
This is such an important point. If resilience is to mean anything, it has to be for us all, not just for some. My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the lessons of past tragedies, whether it is covid-19, Grenfell Tower or others, is that it is often the most vulnerable in our society who are hardest hit. That is why it is so important that we learn the lessons of the past and have support for the most vulnerable at the heart of our work.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead, recently met senior representatives from a range of organisations that support people who are disproportionately impacted by emergencies and crises to make sure that resilience is, indeed, for all, and not just for some.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
As I set out in my speech to the NATO cyber-defence conference last week, we are working to strengthen the UK’s cyber-resilience, but there is, of course, still more to do. In the King’s Speech, we announced that the Government will bring forward a cyber-security and resilience Bill, which will help to strengthen the UK’s cyber-defences and our work with industry to help to make the UK a safe place to live and work online.
I stress to the House that this is an ongoing effort. It can never be perfect, but we are constantly working to make sure we have the strongest cyber-defences possible.
Nick Smith
The college in Ebbw Vale has a brilliant cyber security course training young people for jobs in this growing sector. However, the national cyber-security chief says there is a “widening gap” between the UK’s defences and the threats posed by hostile nations, so can the Minister confirm what is being done to scale up the workforce to defend our crucial infrastructure?
Pat McFadden
I congratulate the college in Ebbw Vale on its brilliant cyber-security course.
My hon. Friend is right to point out the threat, which is why I spoke at the NATO cyber-defence conference last week. State and non-state actors are constantly probing our defences. It is a constant effort to keep those defences strong, and we are determined to work not only with education but with business and our critical national infrastructure to make sure we are as well protected as we can be against the threats we face. Security is no longer just about hard military power; it is also about cyber-security, which is why that has to be a real priority for the Government.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
As I said a few moments ago, last week I addressed the NATO cyber-defence conference about the increasingly aggressive and reckless behaviour from Russia, in particular in the cyber-realm, including attacks on NATO members. I made it clear that no one will intimidate us into weakening our support for Ukraine. I also announced the Laboratory for AI Security Research and a new incident unit to help our allies respond to cyber-attacks against them.
We promised to make a tangible difference to people’s lives. I will shortly be setting out in this House our ambitious plan for change over the next few years, and copies of that plan will be made available to Members in advance of the statement.
Alison Bennett
During the recent debate on the infected blood compensation scheme, the Government made promising indications regarding boosting engagement with affected groups. Victims and their families in Mid Sussex and across the country have been waiting for decades for answers. It is essential that people begin to receive the compensation that is so long overdue. Why did the Government make last-minute changes to the accepted documents for interim compensation claims required from the estates of people who died after receiving contaminated blood and blood products? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what action is being taken to tackle the unacceptable delays?
Mr Speaker
Order. I say gently to the hon. Lady that we are now on topicals, which are meant to be short and punchy. Today, we seem to have a bit of time, but please try to help each other.
Pat McFadden
Let me assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who leads on this, is fully aware of the issues she has raised. He is working with the groups affected and is determined to ensure that initial payments are out by the end of the year.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Was the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team informed by Downing Street of the former Transport Secretary’s conviction before she was appointed as a Minister of the Crown?
Pat McFadden
The former Transport Secretary had exchanges with the Prime Minister last week, which have resulted in her resigning from the post. She set out her reasons for her resignation in that letter. We now have a new Transport Secretary, who has already made an excellent start in the job.
Alex Burghart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for restating what is already known. Obviously, it is a matter of public interest whether the propriety and ethics team had been informed before the right hon. Lady was made Transport Secretary. I ask him again: will he confirm whether the PET was informed by Downing Street of the former Transport Secretary’s conviction before she was appointed a Minister of the Crown?
Pat McFadden
All Cabinet Ministers have an interview and make declarations to the propriety and ethics team before they are appointed to the Government. I am aware of what I told the propriety and ethics team before my appointment, but I do not look through the declarations from every other Minister.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Earlier this week, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to bring in proportional representation for Westminster elections and English local elections. I was delighted that it passed a Division of the House. It was supported by Labour Members, as it reflected Labour party policy on this matter. Now that it is the express will of the House that my Bill gets a Second Reading, will the Secretary of State commit to giving the Bill Government time so that it can be fully debated?
Pat McFadden
I hate to do this as we are approaching the festive season, but I am afraid that I will have to disappoint the hon. Lady. We have no plans to change the electoral system, and I cannot give her the Government time that she requires.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
I am very sorry to hear about the cyber-attack against my hon. Friend’s local authority. Such attacks can have a serious impact on local residents. As I said in my speech to the NATO cyber-defence conference last week, the Government are determined to strengthen cyber-resilience in the UK. We publish guidance on it and meet with stakeholders. Advice is available from the National Cyber Security Centre. In October, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government launched the cyber assessment framework for local government, which is particularly geared at the local authorities about which he speaks.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
“What now for our special envoy?” lament the people of Scotland, now that Sue Gray has told the Prime Minister what he can do with his job offer. In the spirit of cross-border co-operation, might I suggest that the Minister informs No. 10 that we have known all along that this has been nothing more than an embarrassing fiasco, and a cynical face-saving attempt by the Prime Minister, who must think we button up the back?
Pat McFadden
I thought that the hon. Member was going to give me a Christmas greeting, but I am still waiting. In the absence of any envoys, he will have to put up with me instead, as the Minister for intergovernmental relations. It is a part of my job that I take very seriously, for perhaps obvious reasons. I enjoyed my conversations yesterday with the First Minister of Scotland, the First Minister of Wales, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. I will keep having such conversations.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
In the light of today’s very important announcements about the mission milestones, could we hear a bit about the important work of the mission boards, which have led us to this point?
Pat McFadden
I will have more to say on this shortly, but it is important that Governments set out what they are trying to do and on what timescale, particularly when we have an atmosphere in politics—this is the serious point—of a lack of faith among many in the electorate in the ability of Governments of any stripe to deliver. We take that seriously, and want to do something about it.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Next Tuesday, the Northern Ireland Assembly is to be invited to agree that the European Parliament should make its laws for the next four years in 300 areas of law affecting Northern Ireland. The Cabinet Office issued an explanatory document that does not set out what was meant to be set out, according to the Windsor framework. Article 18 said that the process would be conducted “strictly in accordance with” the UK unilateral declaration of October 2019. That declaration required a public consultation. There has been no public consultation. Why is that, and why is the matter proceeding in the absence of it?
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I am delighted to give Christmas greetings to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I am sure that most of us in the House feel a great deal of respect for him.
As the Prime Minister knew he was appointing a convicted fraudster to the Cabinet, was it not incumbent on him to tell the propriety and ethics team? If I can slip a second question in, Mr Speaker, will the right hon. Gentleman, who is committed to and leads in the Government on transparency and openness, all of which have been promised, undertake—notwithstanding the fact that he has not looked at these declarations—to find out and let the House know whether she declared it to the House?
Pat McFadden
As I said to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) a few moments ago, all Secretaries of State give their declaration to the propriety and ethics team upon appointment. The matter was concluded last Friday with the Transport Secretary’s resignation. She has been replaced by a new Secretary of State, and she set out her reasons for resigning in her resignation letter. If the right hon. Member has not had a copy, I am quite happy to make it available to him.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to a duty of candour for public bodies. In the light of the appalling crimes of John Smyth, who left over 100 children assaulted and traumatised while senior members of the Church of England looked the other way, what steps is the Minister considering in conjunction with the Church so that bishops, dioceses, cathedrals and national church institutions are designated as public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000?
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Golden Valley development adjacent to GCHQ in Cheltenham will pay a vital role in our nation’s cyber-security. The recent confirmation of £20 million from the Government for that development is welcome, but will the Secretary of State confirm that the project will continue to feature in future iterations of the national cyber strategy?
Pat McFadden
The best thing to do when it comes to a specific place is for me to look into the exact situation and come back to the hon. Member. I assure him, as I have said several times during this session, that cyber-security is extremely important to the Government. It is not just the Government’s job; cyber-security has to be taken seriously by business and the whole of society. That is why we have the National Cyber Security Centre giving advice to bodies of all kinds to ensure that they are defended as well as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the infected blood compensation scheme, and everybody in the House and across the country is pleased to see it. As of this month, how many individuals have registered for infected blood compensation payments, and can the Minister provide an update for the delivery of compensation in 2025? I would be pleased to get those figures for the United Kingdom, but in particular for Northern Ireland.
Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government
Pat McFadden Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the next phase of the Government’s programme.
In July we set out our legislative programme, in October we set out our financial plan, and today we are setting out our plan for change. When we were elected, we said that we would have five long-term missions for the country: to grow the economy, to build an NHS fit for the future, to break down the barriers to opportunity, to take back our streets, and to make the UK a clean energy superpower. These missions mark an important and fundamental break from the record of chaos that we saw under the previous Administration—the constant changes in policy that prevented the then Government from facing up to long-term problems, held people back and, worst of all, helped to spread the belief that politics and government could no longer deliver for people. In fact, by the end they had given up even trying.
We will never submit to the fatalism that says government cannot deliver change for people. We do not believe that living standards have to stagnate as they did in the last Parliament. We do not accept the lowest levels of satisfaction with the NHS ever recorded, which is what we inherited when we came to power. We do not believe that a tawdry surrender to Tory Back Benchers should be allowed to cut off the dream of home ownership for the next generation. We will not sit back and accept a situation in which young children are falling behind their peers even before they start school, damaging their opportunities for the rest of their lives.
A break with all that is more than a political choice. It is a national necessity, so today we turn the page on that record. We reject the hopelessness that it fostered, and we have set out milestones for each of our missions and the foundations that underpin them. We have already stabilised the public finances. We have announced £22 billion more for the NHS, and we are increasing the schools budget by more than £2 billion. We have rejected the plans that we inherited from the Conservatives to cut back on capital investment and on the country’s future; instead, we want to build the schools, build the hospitals, build the houses and build the transport infrastructure that the country needs—investments that the Conservatives now say they support, although they reject every means of raising the revenue to pay for them. That proves only one thing: they have given up any pretence of being the party of sound money, and given up on being a serious political party at all.
Our plan for change sets out key milestones for the country. The first is to raise living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, so that working people have more money in their pockets no matter where in the country they live. The second is to build 1.5 million homes and to fast-track planning decisions on at least 150 major infrastructure projects; that is more than in the last 14 years combined. The third is to tackle the hospital backlogs by meeting the NHS standard of patients waiting no longer than 18 weeks for elective treatment in England. The fourth is to provide a named police officer for every neighbourhood, and 13,000 additional officers, police community support officers and special constables in neighbourhood teams in England and Wales. The fifth is to secure home-grown energy while also protecting bill payers: we want to be on track for clean power by 2030. The sixth is to give children the best start in life by ensuring that a record percentage of five-year-olds in England are ready to learn when they start school.
Underpinning those milestones are the strong foundations that the country needs. Economic stability is the foundation for growth, following a Budget that restored stability to the public finances and put in place investment to move the country forward. We will reduce net migration from the record high level that we inherited from the previous Government, clear the asylum backlog and increase returns of people who do not have the right to be here —work that has already begun. We will also fulfil the Government’s first duty of protecting our people through strong national security. Those are the milestones in our “Plan for Change”. None of them is easy, but worthwhile change seldom is. To deliver them will require relentless focus and facing up to the trade-offs involved.
Governing is not just about what we want to do, but about how we want to do it, so we have to reform the state itself to deliver our goals. That is why we want value for money, and are cracking down on fraud and waste through the new covid corruption commissioner. That is why we will raise £6 billion by going after tax avoiders—unlike the Conservative party, we are putting in the money to make it happen. That is why the Chancellor demanded efficiency and productivity savings of 2% from each Government Department next year. That is why we want to get more people off welfare and into work. That is why we will tackle the delays and blocks in our planning system to make it faster to get things built.
The old debate was just about Government budgets. The new debate has to be about how those budgets are used, and about how people can be equipped with the right technology and the right systems to deliver, so we will ask the following questions each time. Is power being devolved enough? Is technology being used enough? Are we learning enough from those on the frontline? We will have more to say about reform of the state soon.
I know there may be scepticism from those who first accused us of being far too cautious and now accuse us of being far too ambitious, but stop and think about what would happen if we did not set such goals. Politics needs a change when people have lost faith in its capacity to deliver, and the Government system itself needs a change to focus on the goals that we have set.
If we had just carried on in the same old pattern, we would have too many children who are not ready to start school, with opportunity cut off within the first few years of their lives. We would carry on with huge NHS waiting lists, which hurt both our people and our economy. We would have more and more young people cut off from having a home of their own and asking what all their effort and hard work will ever lead to. We would continue with too many of our town centres being no-go zones for people after dark. We would still be at the mercy of dictators when it comes to energy prices. Perhaps most of all, we would have an economy like the one the Conservatives ran, in which living standards continue to stagnate, just as they did in the last Parliament. If we did that, the loss of faith would simply carry on.
It is not a matter of whether we should do this. We have to do this to stop the country falling behind, and to meet the challenges that we face. If we meet these goals, we will have a country where living standards are rising, more children are ready for school, fewer people are waiting in pain for NHS treatment, more people have the chance to have a home of their home, and our streets are safer because we have the community police we need. That is change worth having and change worth fighting for, and I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement. It was very nice to receive it only 12 hours after The Times, although I must say that I received the policy document itself only at 11.05 am, unlike Labour MPs at Pinewood studios who, according to social media, had the document some time before. While the Prime Minister is at Pinewood, I hope he will hear its owner’s concerns about the very substantial increase in business rates from 2026, which will affect the profits and viability of what was, under the Conservatives, a flourishing sector.
The Opposition congratulate the Government on their most recent reset—there are only a few more resets left before Christmas. The Labour party might want to try turning it off and, well, maybe just leaving it off, but it is good that it has taken the time to come up with an emergency list of priorities. After only 14 years in opposition and five months in power, it has finally decided on some things that it is going to work towards.
The statement was quite punchy about the past, unusually punchy for the right hon. Gentleman. If he is rattled, and he is not the rattling type, it is a sign that the Government must be feeling pretty unstable at the moment. Labour Members talk about legacy, and I wish them good fortune in government—I genuinely mean that.
The last Government had to clean up the mess from the greatest financial crisis in a century. The last Government had to deal with the biggest pandemic in a century. The last Government had to deal with the biggest war in Europe since 1945. [Interruption.] Labour Members might gloss over that, they might pretend it is not important, but history judges it very differently. It reflects very badly on the Labour party that it refuses to acknowledge the importance of those extremely significant events.
I will now turn to each of the new millstones in order.
First, raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom so that working people have more money in their pockets, no matter where they live. How is this to be measured? What are the metrics? When will the data be published? Who will be held to account? We all need to know.
Secondly, building 1.5 million homes and fast-tracking planning decisions. The Office for Budget Responsibility has already said that this Government are very unlikely to build more homes than the last Conservative Government. What has changed since the Budget? Why do the Government now believe they will be able to achieve this? Is there more money? Have the spending plans changed?
Thirdly, tackling hospital backlogs. We have already seen funding first, reform later—a disastrous way to do business. NHS bosses have been briefed about this, and they are already briefing the press that this requirement will put enormous pressure on A&E without additional money beyond that given at the Budget. Is more money going to be made available for the NHS to fulfil this milestone?
Fourthly, policing. Only 3,000 of the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers are extra new police officers. This target is not genuine. Is there a proposal to deal with the backlog in the courts? Without that, extra police officers will lead only to greater backlog in the courts. Does the Labour party have a plan for this?
Fifthly, energy. In March, Labour’s missions document said that, by 2030, the UK would be the first major country in the world to run 100% on clean and cheap power. Since March, this has been degraded by 5%. Can we expect the target to be degraded by 5% every nine months?
Sixthly, getting children ready to learn. This is a genuinely wonderful target, but what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by “ready to learn”? How will it be measured? When will the House be told whether progress is being made?
Obviously, on all of these, there are good things to be done, but the missions will only mean anything if the Government are honest about what they are doing and about the milestones they are hitting or not hitting. Also, why have the Government downgraded certain other priorities? How have they chosen these six issues over immigration, over GP surgeries, over A&E, over defence, over the £300 energy bill reduction target or over becoming the fastest-growing economy in the G7? Why have the Government chosen these priorities? The House should be told.
Finally, who is taking responsibility—I mean real responsibility—for achieving the targets? A lot of us were pleased when, the other day, the Health Secretary said that individuals at the top of the health service would be held accountable with their jobs if targets were not hit. Will the same apply to Ministers? Who in Government is taking real responsibility for the targets? If the Government are serious, we need data, accountability and transparency. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee to the House that we will get that?
Pat McFadden
I have spent more of my life than I would have liked in opposition, and I learned one thing about being in opposition: one has to decide what one’s attack is. As I listened to the hon. Gentleman, I was not sure whether he supported or opposed the plan.
The hon. Gentleman refers to millstones. Let me tell him very clearly: the only millstone that this Government and this country have is the appalling legacy left by the Conservatives. Let us contrast what we are announcing today with their milestones of failure. They had record high waiting lists, the worst Parliament for living standards on record, a surrender on house building, a failure on infrastructure and a £22 billion hole in the public finances —those are their milestones of failure.
These are our choices today. The metrics by which we measure things are set out in the document before the House. The targets will make a real difference to people’s lives: higher living standards across the country, more housing, fewer people on NHS waiting lists, more community police and the best start in life for all children. That final metric is already measured when children start school at the age of five; under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, that metric fell, so our plan is to raise that, so that three out of four children can start school ready to learn. That is the measure that we will choose.
The truth is that the Conservatives could not tackle the challenges we have set out today, and they know it. They could not unblock the housing system or get the growth the country needs because they are the ones blocking the new housing and the infrastructure that we need. They could not fix the schools or the hospitals, or get more police on the streets, because they are still saying that they support the investment while opposing any revenue measure that pays for it, thereby sacrificing any reputation for economic competence that they had.
What a contrast. We will not subscribe to the fatalistic view that all we can look forward to is more of the kind of failure we saw over the past 14 years. We believe in setting out plans that will improve people’s lives, because we know that a united Government, with a clear sense of priorities, prepared to do the hard yards and make the difficult long-term choices for the country, can deliver a better future for people. That is what is set out in the plans we have published today.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s plan for change, which will ensure that the Government are focused on delivery, not the dither we have seen for the past 14 years with the Conservatives. I especially welcome the NHS target of 18 weeks; the last Labour Government were able to deliver that target and NHS satisfaction levels were at their highest in history. Fourteen years of the Conservatives running the NHS into the ground have left it in an appalling state. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that that must never be allowed to happen again?
Pat McFadden
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When we came into office in 1997, we were also faced with an NHS that was in severe difficulty. Let me be clear with the House: meeting that target is extremely challenging, but we believe that by setting it and driving the system towards it, we can make real progress towards reducing waiting lists. What a contrast in terms of what the public felt. When we left office in 2010, the public satisfaction rates with the NHS were the highest ever recorded. When we came back into office in July, those satisfaction levels were the lowest ever recorded. That is what we are trying to turn around through the plan we have published today.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of the statement. This new Government have followed the disaster of the previous Conservative Administration. The Conservatives broke the NHS, they crashed the economy with the disastrous mini-Budget and they managed the staggering feat of delivering five Prime Ministers in six years. It should not exactly be a hard act to follow—and yet, too many people feel like this new Government are still not listening to them.
When my colleagues and I speak to our constituents, they simply cannot comprehend decisions such as the increase in national insurance, which will hurt jobs just as we need to get the economy going; the tax on family farms; or the utterly misguided removal of the winter fuel payment. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, therefore, if I approach today’s announcement with a degree of scepticism. New targets are all well and good, but people have heard lots of similar pledges and targets before. As they know all too well, without a proper plan for delivery, they fail. I hope the Government recognise that pursuing the targets at the expense of all the other things left broken by the Conservatives will not cut it. The British public will not be taken for fools.
On that point, I want to focus on the NHS. Yes, bringing down waiting lists for treatment is a crucial part of the picture, but doing so at the cost of neglecting A&E waits or the ability to see a GP is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. We know that to fix the crisis in the NHS we must also fix the crisis in our care system. Indeed, it is on fixing health and care and delivering on the issues that people care about most that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches will continue to hold the Government to account. When will we hear more detail about how the plan is to be delivered, and particularly, about spending allocations for the NHS to fix our hospitals and reduce those waiting lists?
Pat McFadden
I welcome the questions from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. She is right to point out the Conservatives’ record, but I gently say that she too seems to support extra spending but oppose all the revenue-raising measures that go towards that. The truth is that if we are serious, we cannot do that. The reason we have had to raise revenue was the appalling legacy that we inherited. We had to stabilise the public finances and fix the situation we were left with. Now that we have done that, we can look forward to delivering on these key goals.
The hon. Lady asks how the plans are to be paid for. There will be a spending review next year, as she knows. However, we have already announced £22 billion extra for the NHS over the next couple of years, which is accompanied by the reforms that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has set out.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
This Labour Government’s plans to make work pay will give thousands of workers in my constituency a much-needed pay rise after 14 years of failure by the Conservative party. Does my right hon. Friend agree that plans to support low-paid workers in insecure jobs will be not only crucial but absolutely central to our plan for change?
Pat McFadden
I welcome what my hon. Friend said about pay. The Chancellor announced a significant increase in the minimum wage at the time of the Budget a few weeks ago. Of course we want public sector workers and everybody who helps to deliver a plan to be rewarded well, but it also has to come with change in the way the state works, to make sure we get the best value for money and the best productivity and make the best use of technology. We cannot have that just in the private sphere; we have to apply it to the public sphere to make sure we get the best bang for the taxpayers’ buck.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think anybody doubts the sincerity of the new Government in wanting to achieve these laudable aims. I remind him, however, of John Lennon’s line:
“Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”
Notably absent from the priorities are ones such as reducing the national debt or dealing with the demographic challenge or the lack of defence and security that we need to build up to confront global challenges. Are these aims the Government’s only priorities or will we see a bigger list that deals with some of the really existential challenges that threaten the independence and survival of our country?
Pat McFadden
I welcome the hon. Member’s question. He referred to defence and security. I did deliberately mention that area in my remarks, because it is an absolute foundation of any Government that their first duty is to protect their people. That is why there is a specific section on it in the document, and why it is an underpinning foundation for the goals that we have set out today.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
I listened carefully to the shadow Minister’s reply, and it sounded to me like he welcomed much of the investment that our Government will deliver, but, funnily enough, he will not support any measures to pay for it. I was always taught that the Tories were against a something-for-nothing culture. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this will only compound the Tories’ reputation for economic recklessness?
Pat McFadden
I do think the Tories have a problem. The new Leader of the Opposition stood at that Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago and said that she supported all the extra investments. Therefore, every time the Opposition stand up and oppose the revenue measures that are designed to fund them, all they do is expose their own economic incoherence. It is quite simple: if the Opposition support the investments, they have either to support the revenue measures that we have set out, or set out alternative revenue-raising measures to meet the investments that they support. So far, they have utterly failed to do that.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Five months in and after a Budget that the Office for Budget Responsibility says will lower growth over five years, increase inflation and reduce the number of people in jobs, it is extraordinary to see a document that has so many areas not covered. I want to probe the right hon. Gentleman specifically on his goal of increasing disposable income for working people. What would he say to those 44,000 terminally ill older people who, in shocking news last week from Marie Curie, will not get their winter fuel allowance this year? Will he be judged by his governance actions?
Pat McFadden
Every Government are judged by their actions and by the legacy that they leave to their successors. We had to take that decision on winter fuel precisely because of the legacy that was left to us. We do want to see a rise in people’s living standards and in their disposable income. Those stagnated under the previous Government, and let us not forget how unusual that was. This was the first Parliament in living memory that saw stagnated living standards across the whole population. We aim to change that and make sure that people see rising living standards wherever they live in the country.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
When I was a child in Denton Holme in Carlisle, PC Kevin Scott was a very familiar figure. He knew us and we knew his name. Does the Minister agree that not only does society exist, but it is woven from thousands of communities such as Denton Holme, and that our commitment to reintroducing named community police officers will strengthen those communities, strengthen society and take back our streets?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right. Let me praise PC Kevin Scott and other officers like him who are known in the community. While I am here, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me mention Kenny, our police community support officer on Bilston high street, who helps to keep us safe. We want to see more named officers like that, so that people know who is keeping their streets safe and can put a face to the name, and we can restore proper community policing to make our streets and our town centres safe.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
However the Minister tries to dress this up, there is an unmistakeable whiff of panic about it. One would have thought that a decade and a half of opposition would have been ample time to prepare a plan for change, rather than the relaunch of a Government whose five-year plan seems to have unravelled after just five months. I was particularly interested, however, to hear about the Government’s commitment to reform of the state. He said that each time, they will ask, “Is power being devolved enough?” Given that the Scottish Government have asked for powers on migration, employment law and the constitution to be devolved, when can we expect to see some action on that reform of the state, and that important commitment to devolution?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member calls this a relaunch. I hate to break it to him, but the Government he supports in Scotland produce a programme for government every single year. Does that mean that they relaunch every year, or does he put that accusation only to us? He asks about devolution. We were the party that created devolution because we believed in a powerful Scottish Parliament. We still do, and it has just received its biggest real-terms increase in funding since devolution came into being. He missed out his thanks to the Labour Chancellor who made that happen.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome today’s statement, which is a real plan for change and hope. It is clear that the Conservatives do not like us talking about their record, but it had a real-world impact in constituencies such as mine, particularly when it came to bobbies on the beat. For 14 years, the Conservatives stripped us of bobbies on the beat, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said, neighbourhood policing was stripped out of many local communities. I particularly welcome the requirement in today’s plan for more neighbourhood policing, which will have a real-world impact on my constituents.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we saw huge cuts in the number of police officers after the Conservative party came to power, which really affected the neighbourhood community policing teams that we had set up during our period in Government. We want to ensure that there are proper neighbourhood policing teams in every community, with a named officer, so that people can feel safe on their streets and in their communities. That absolutely underpins our quality of life. There is no freedom if people do not feel safe, which is why it is such a core part of the plan that we have produced today.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to revitalising faith in democratic politics, and I agree that Government can be a force for good, but he will know that perhaps the biggest macroeconomic challenge that we face is productivity; indeed, he mentioned it today. I am therefore disappointed to see in the plan no real mention of work- force skills or national economic resilience, in terms of growing more of the food that we eat and making more of the goods that we need. Will he look at those two areas and set productivity targets, for which Ministers can be held accountable, so that what really counts is not just what we spend but what we get for what we spend?
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Member might have noticed that I said in my opening remarks that an old debate just about the size of the budget is not enough for the situation that we face. Of course budgets, resources and investment matter, but so too does reform of the way the state works, the application of technology, and the balance between what is done centrally and what is done in devolved areas. Alongside any delivery goals there has to be a real plan to make them happen that reforms the state. I am clear that that must go alongside the goals that we have set out today.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Waiting lists on the NHS have already been mentioned, but they need to be mentioned again, because the last 14 years have made such a difference to constituents in Truro and Falmouth. They have really struggled to work and to live, having to wait one or two years for orthopaedic operations. Please will my right hon. Friend speak again about what has already been done to deal with those waiting lists, and how that will lead into the future?
Pat McFadden
This is a hugely important problem for the country, because the current levels are not just bad for those waiting a long time for NHS treatment; they are also bad for the economy, because we have so many people in that position. That number has started to fall slightly since we came into office, but it will take a long and sustained effort and a combination of investment and reform. I am glad that we were able to announce the biggest increase in NHS funding since 2010 outside the pandemic period, but that has to be used in a way that gets waiting lists down, helps the people waiting for NHS treatment and, crucially, helps produce the economic growth and productivity we need. The truth is too many people are waiting in pain and too many people of working age are out of work on long-term sickness benefits, and we have to do something about both those things if we are to meet our economic growth targets and get the rising living standards we want to see.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In the document, the Government have downgraded their pledge to have the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and junked their pledge to cut energy bills by £300, breaking two promises to the British people. Of the milestones they are keeping, who is accountable for each one, what are the detailed metrics, where are the implementation plans and will Ministers take responsibility if they fail to meet them?
Pat McFadden
If the hon. Member reads the document carefully, he will see that the growth target is very much in the document, but the document also says that it is not enough just to have economic growth; people have to feel it in their standard of living. That should be an important lesson for all of us in politics.
The hon. Member challenges me on accountability. Of course the targets are challenging, but let us look at the alternative. We were not prepared to carry on with the thinking that announcements were something real, with no real focus on delivery and driving the system. In case he has not noticed, there is a crisis of faith in politics out there. We have set out targets today that will make a real difference to people’s lives. I accept that they are challenging, but if we have fewer people waiting in pain, more people able to own their own home, safer streets and a better chance in life for children starting school, that is change worth having, and that is why we published the plan.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the statement. Harlow is a town plagued by low-paid and insecure work and people being forced out of work due to waiting for operations. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster describe how the plan will help tackle those issues for residents in my town? I gently say to the Conservatives when they talk about metrics that they are the party that criticised schools during their tenure because apparently half the schools were below average.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right that when people do the right thing and they go out to work and try to earn a living, they should have a decent reward for what they do. That is why Labour introduced the concept of a national minimum wage in the first place—opposed by the Conservatives, who said it would destroy jobs—and why the Chancellor announced at the recent Budget a significant increase in that wage so that when people do the right thing, they are rewarded and can get a decent living for the hard work they do.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Flexible affordable childcare is a critical part of our economic infrastructure. It gives parents more choice over how to organise their life, and it helps them return to work if they want to, as well as giving children a good start in life. Yet nurseries in Marple in my Hazel Grove constituency have told me that the Government’s increase in national insurance charges will force them to increase costs to families. The Government rightly say they are serious about fixing early years provision and tackling the attainment gap for disadvantaged children, so do they plan to exempt early years and nursery settings from their ill-advised hikes to national insurance charges?
Pat McFadden
If the hon. Member looks at the document, she will find that an expansion of nursery places is in it, because we know it is good for children and for working parents. That is part of the plan we set out today, and part of our plan to ensure that children in early years have the best possible start in life. I cannot announce anything further to the Budget on national insurance, but she knows the background to why we had to take those decisions.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Listening to Conservative Members, one would think we were left a golden legacy. Despite that halcyon legacy, it is no wonder the Conservatives were resoundingly beaten in the last election—my constituents want an NHS that can be relied on, yet Lord Darzi’s report was clear that we have not sorted out the health service or social care. Indeed, 13% of NHS beds are taken up by people who could be in social care. Will the Minister outline what he will do to ensure that we finally get to grips with that crucial issue?
Pat McFadden
The legacy of the Conservative Government was not just economic or in policy, but a loss of faith in government’s ability to do things. That is part of the backdrop to the plan that we are publishing today. I commend Lord Darzi’s report to anyone who has not read it. It fully sets out the legacy in health. We have put getting waiting lists down at the heart of the plan that we are publishing today because that drives the whole system; if we get them down, we will have a healthier population, more people ready to work, more people to contribute to the country and more people to contribute to our productivity. That is why it is at the heart of the plan.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking the time to come to the House to set out where the milestones are—that is a positive move for a Government to make in order to give clarity. However, it would also be incredibly helpful if he set out how he will keep the House updated—perhaps on a six-monthly basis—to track the plan’s development and the Government’s delivery of it. There is a long time until the next general election, so it would be good to see how the plan is progressing throughout this Parliament.
Pat McFadden
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the plan, which stands in marked contrast to the scepticism shown by his party’s Front Benchers. He will have plenty of opportunity, now that we have published the plan, to ask Ministers about these things as we move forward. We know that they will be challenging to deliver. We have not yet followed the advice of the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara), who suggested that we do this every year, but I am sure that the Ministers in charge of these goals will keep the House regularly updated.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
My constituency saw the highest price rises in the country back in August, as a direct result of the Conservatives’ opposition to building the houses that are clearly so desperately wanted and needed in my constituency. Can the Minister assure young people in my constituency, who are desperate to buy their own homes, start families and get on with their lives, that Labour will deliver for them?
Pat McFadden
Building more houses is a challenging thing to do because there are always people who will object and blockages in our planning system, and things take too long. We have a major planning and infrastructure Bill coming in the new year that aims to unblock some of that. We know that the target is challenging, but we must build more houses in this country—and not just houses, but more infrastructure in order to get the economic growth that we need. It takes too long for major investments to happen. I look forward to the Conservative party’s support for our planning and infrastructure Bill when it is introduced in the new year.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Conservative Government brough the NHS to its knees. Theirs is a legacy of crumbling hospitals, of doctors and nurses working at burnout, and of patients being treated in corridors. The Liberal Democrats welcome the extra investment in the NHS and support the ambition to get waiting lists down, but the Government cannot fix the NHS without first fixing social care. At Winchester hospital—part of the Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust—almost one in five beds are filled by someone who could be cared for through the social care package but is stuck in a hospital bed. That has the knock-on effect of increasing A&E and ambulance waiting times, and of elective surgeries being cancelled. Will the Government review the national insurance increase for social care providers and hospices, and will they commit to cross-party talks so that we can have a long-term plan to fix social care?
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but there is a contradiction at the heart of it. He began by saying he welcomed the extra investment in the NHS, and ended by saying he opposed the national insurance increase that is necessary to fund these things. As I have said before, people cannot support the extra investment we have announced, but oppose every revenue-raising measure that contributes to it—it simply does not work like that. If we want the extra investment, we have to support the revenue-raising measures that make it possible.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The plan for change is clear. This Government will restore order to the asylum and immigration system, clear the asylum backlog, end the use of hotels, increase returns and cut small boat crossings. Does the Minister agree that this plan stands in stark contrast to the open borders policy that the Conservative party subjected the country to?
Pat McFadden
It is striking that when the Conservatives came into power, they began by promising to reduce net migration to under 100,000, and bequeathed us a situation where that figure was 10 times higher. This happened on their watch with their policies, and now we are left to clear up the situation and restore some order to our migration policy. The country will always need migration, but the “Plan for Change” document sets out what my hon. Friend said; we will reduce net migration and deal with illegal migration in the way she set out.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am very pleased to read that Labour’s drive is for the working man and woman—that has to be welcomed, and I very much welcome the £25 billion for the NHS. It would be churlish of me, or of anyone in the House, not to do so.
However, the Budget put a question mark over the viability of working farms. It stripped pensioners of their winter fuel allowance and put what could possibly be unsustainable pressure on 99% of microbusinesses and small businesses in Northern Ireland. That is not helping the working man or the working woman. Everybody in this House wants the Labour party to succeed, for the sake of the country and for its people—actually, I might want it more than most, if I can say that. I once again ask whether the Government will have the strength to acknowledge and put right the wrong calls that have been made, to lead this great nation successfully to prosperity with no pensioner, small business or family farm left behind.
Pat McFadden
I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member has asked his question. On farms, as the Chancellor made clear, a couple would have an allowance of £3 million before any inheritance obligation kicked in, and then it would be at half the rate that other people have to pay, so significant protections are built into the policy. On pensioners, it is very important to remember that we have said we will protect the triple lock, which is reflected in the pension increase that has been announced for next year.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
After 14 years of repeated broken promises, it is hardly surprising that many people are distrustful of politicians and the ability of government to do anything positive. Does the Minister agree that in setting out a clear plan for change, the Government are offering the British people not just the hope of a better future, but clear, measurable metrics against which they can be held to account?
Pat McFadden
This question of distrust and loss of faith is really important, because after so much chaos in recent years, it is very easy for our constituents to turn off from politics—to think that no Government of any political colour can deliver for them. We were determined not to allow that scepticism to set in and become the norm, so we have set out targets. I acknowledge, not for the first time today, that those targets are challenging. They are not easy to meet, but progress towards them—with lower waiting times, more houses built, and the other things set out in the plan for change document—will show that the Government are trying to deliver for people and that politics can bring productive change. That is change worth having.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), I welcome these milestones, and I agree with what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said about the need to restore trust. How will Labour’s health policies in England differ from those that they pursued in Wales?
Pat McFadden
I am sure that in every part of the country, Governments who run the NHS want to see waiting lists fall. We put that at the heart of the plan for change today because it drives the whole system, and because the levels of satisfaction with the NHS that we inherited were the lowest ever recorded. No Government can be content with that; I can tell the right hon. Gentleman honestly that no Labour Government are content with it. That is why it is an important part of the plan.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
In West Brom, one issue dominates all else: the fact that people are working harder and harder, but can afford less and less. That is the record of the Conservative party, who crashed our economy and oversaw the worst cost of living crisis in a generation. Can my right hon. Friend set out how the plan for change will make ordinary people better off and deliver exactly what people voted for in July?
Pat McFadden
I very much welcome that question from my parliamentary neighbour. We represent very similar communities, and I agree that when people go out to work and do the right thing, they want to be rewarded, rightly. That is why we protected people’s payslips in the Budget. It is why we announced an increase in the minimum wage in the Budget. It is why we made sure in the Budget that carers could earn more before losing part of their revenue. We want work to be rewarded. We are the Labour party; we are the party of labour. When people do the right thing, they should be treated fairly.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Conservatives have always claimed to be the party of law and order, but they took police officers off the streets. Knife and youth crime, antisocial behaviour and local drug activity are some of the most common complaints in my constituency. I welcome the Labour Government’s urgent action to recruit more neighbourhood police officers. My right hon. Friend knows my constituency well, because it adjoins his in Wolverhampton. Can he confirm that this action will make a real difference to my constituents?
Pat McFadden
I welcome the question from my parliamentary neighbour on the other side of my constituency. He is right that people in his constituency and mine care deeply about the safety of their community. They saw the cuts in policing after the Conservative party came to power. They saw their neighbourhood officers being more and more stretched, trying to cover more and more area with not enough officers. It is really important to restore a sense of community policing, so that people feel safe in their community and on their street, because that underpins the freedom that people need to live their life.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. When these achievements are reached, the impact on communities like mine will be profound. For too long, people have been told that government does not work. They need to understand that when government is done well, it can and will work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people need these milestones for progress, after 14 years of milestones of failure?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As I said in my statement, let us consider what the situation would be if we did not do these things. We would just carry on with the situation that we have, in which, for example, young people work harder and harder and think, “How will I ever get a home of my own?”, and people waiting for NHS treatment are told that they might have to wait for 18 months or two years. That is too long to wait for treatment. That is why we put those things at the heart of the document today. It will make a real difference to people’s lives if we manage to meet the milestones. They are challenging, but doing this can help drive the system and ensure progress towards our goals.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
The NHS has long been a top issue raised by local residents when I have been out knocking on doors across the whole of Filton and Bradley Stoke, so I welcome not only the investment, but the reform alongside that, and these clear milestones for change, which are what the country voted to see. Will the Minister give a commitment, on behalf of the Government, that no matter the lack of support from the Conservative party, he will persevere with this, as that is what the country wants?
Pat McFadden
I can give my hon. Friend that commitment, and I can assure her of the passion that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care feels for this goal, for turning around the system and for reducing waiting lists and waiting times. He knows how important that is for patients, and for our goal of growing the economy, and that is why the goal is part of the document.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I welcome each and every one of the milestones, and the real, tangible difference that they will make to the lives of my residents in Rossendale and Darwen. Each is a crucial step in the process of mission delivery. I also welcome the recognition that to get them met, we need to do government differently. Devolution and a move away from command-and-control government represents a real opportunity to enable more effective and efficient delivery, and perhaps even restore some of the trust in politics that was so broken and destroyed by the Conservative party.
In Lancashire, we have been held back by an outdated two-tier local government system. Does the Minister agree that it is time for Lancashire leaders to come together to grasp the huge opportunity that devolution offers?
Pat McFadden
As I said, if the goals are to be reached, it will require reform of the state itself, and part of that is about local delivery. There has been a lot of innovation in recent years. We started devolution when we were last in power, and the Conservative party took it forward with the creation of a number of mayors around the country. There is further to go with that. Having mayors and strong local leaders as partners can really help us to deliver the goals set out in the document.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. He has set out concrete, deliverable and measurable milestones against which the British public can judge us. What a stark contrast to Conservative Front-Bench Members, who still refuse even to acknowledge the Liz Truss economic disaster that was the mini-Budget, and to apologise for it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any sort of U-turn that sees the Conservatives backing our steps to restore economic stability is unlikely, and that they will continue to cling to the idea of the magic money tree?
Pat McFadden
The Conservatives did deliver some things. They delivered a huge economic crash, a Bank of England intervention in order to prop up the pension system, and significant increases in mortgage rates, which people are still paying today. The most important thing about defeat is to learn from it, and I have to say from observing the Conservative party that they are not yet doing that.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The legacy of 14 years of the Conservatives in government and a century of Tory complacency in Hexham is seen in how police numbers in Prudhoe fell under the last Government, and indeed in Callerton and Throckley. They have also fallen in our most rural communities. Rural crime is unfortunately brought up with me regularly. That is an example of how the Conservative party has failed to understand the modern countryside. Will the Minister outline how this plan will make a measurable change for our rural communities, as well as towns like Prudhoe?
Pat McFadden
The goals in this document can make a real difference to rural communities. We know that many people in rural communities are worried about rural crime, so more neighbourhood policing can help them. We also know that many young people in rural communities are wondering how they will ever have a home of their own. That is why we support more house building, as well as shorter hospital waiting lists and neighbourhood policing teams, as set out in the document.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am the last Member to be called, but I will try not to take too long. I welcome the scale of the ambition in the Secretary of State’s statement, but I challenge what he said about there being only one millstone in the UK. My residents in Edinburgh South West increasingly feel held back by our incoherent Scottish Government. Yesterday was a fine example of that. In the Scottish Parliament, the SNP Government set their Budget—one largely funded by the hard work of Scottish Labour MPs in this place, who secured the biggest ever settlement for Scotland. Meanwhile, SNP MPs in this place voted against our money-raising measures. They want to eat their cake and have it.
Dr Arthur
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always good to be guided by you. The Secretary of State set out how living standards will increase right across the UK, and Scotland is part of that. How will he work with the Scottish Government and the incoherent SNP Government to do that?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the recent devolution financial settlements were the biggest in real terms since devolution was introduced, as a consequence of the announcements made by the Labour Chancellor at the Budget. That provided the funding, and it is completely incoherent to welcome that funding—in fact, to run around saying that it will be spent on this and that—but then to vote against the revenue measures that contribute to it. If we want increased investment and boosted services, we must support the revenue-raising measures that make that possible; and then we have to combine investment with the reform necessary to deliver. That is the next step.
COVID-19 Inquiry Response Costs: Quarter 2 2024-25
Pat McFadden Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The covid-19 pandemic impacted each and every person in the UK. The work of the UK covid-19 inquiry is crucial in examining the UK’s response to and impact of the covid-19 pandemic. There are evidently lessons to be learnt from the pandemic and the Government are committed to closely considering the covid-19 inquiry’s findings and recommendations, which will play a key role in informing the Government’s planning and preparations for the future. Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Cumulative total Cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff (including contingent labour costs) £5,049,000 £5,303,000 £10,352,000 Number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff (full-time equivalents) 280 284 N/A Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Cumulative total Total legal costs £4,236,000 £5,818,000 £10,054,000
The Government recognise the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, and the importance of examining as rigorously as possible the actions the state took in response, in order to learn lessons for the future. The inquiry is therefore unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile, looking at recent events that have profoundly impacted everyone’s lives.
The independent UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly. Following the publication of the inquiry’s financial report for quarter 2 2024-25 on 24 October 2024, I would like to update colleagues on the costs to the UK Government associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry.
Figures provided are based upon a selection of the most relevant Departments and are not based on a complete set of departmental figures and are not precise for accounting purposes. Ensuring a comprehensive and timely response to the inquiry requires significant input from a number of key Government Departments, including, but not limited to, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.
It should be noted that alongside full-time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. The staff costs associated with appearing as witnesses, preparing witnesses and associated policy development work on the UK covid-19 inquiry are not included in the costs below.
Breakdown of staff and costs
The Government’s response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments.
Number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: 284 full time equivalents.
Cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £5,303,000 (including contingent labour costs).
Financial year 2024-25 (Q1 and Q2), total cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £10,352,000 (including contingent labour costs).
Total inquiry response unit legal costs
Inquiry response units across Government Departments are supported by the Government Legal Department, co-partnering firms of solicitors, and legal counsel. These associated legal costs—excluding internal departmental advisory legal costs—for Q2 are below.
Q2 legal costs: £5,818,000.
Financial year 2024-25 (Q1 and Q2), total legal costs: £10,054,000.
[HCWS259]
Updated Ministerial Code
Pat McFadden Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The Government have today published an updated ministerial code. The code is available on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk. The new code will be instrumental in setting out the high standards that the British people expect and that Ministers must follow.
Changes to the code include incorporating the seven principles of public life directly into the code; strengthening the powers of the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards; setting out guiding principles for Ministers on gifts and hospitality; and introducing improved transparency arrangements to align more closely the publication of ministerial gifts and hospitality with the House of Commons register.
The new code has also been restructured into three distinct sections: Ministers’ standards of conduct; Ministers’ interests; and Ministers and Government procedures. This brings ethical standards to the forefront of the new code, ending the confusing blend of public service values and everyday governing processes found in previous versions.
The new ministerial code also:
Reinserts an explicit reference to international law and treaty obligations as part of Ministers’ overarching duty to comply with the law.
Includes updated terms of reference for the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards—previously the independent adviser on ministers’ interests.
Ensures the code reflects existing rules, guidance and procedure, including the guidance on use of non-corporate communications channels for Government business, quasi-judicial decisions, and public appointments.
This new ministerial code will help to restore the public’s trust in politics, and shape this Government’s mission to return Britain to the service of working people.
The List of Ministers’ Interests
The list of Ministers’ interests is also being published today on www.gov.uk by the independent adviser on ministerial standards. The list provides details of the personal interests of members of the Government that are judged by the independent adviser to be relevant to their ministerial portfolios and duties.
The List of Ministerial Responsibilities
The Government will today be publishing the list of ministerial responsibilities and the list of non-ministerial departments and executive agencies on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk. I have requested that a copy of the list of ministerial responsibilities be deposited in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament. The list of ministerial responsibilities includes details of ministerial Departments, their correspondence contact details, the Ministers within each Department, and their portfolio responsibilities. The list of non-ministerial departments and executive agencies includes details of each of these organisations, along with associated correspondence contact details, the parent Department and the responsible Government Minister.
The Special Adviser Code of Conduct
The Government have today published an updated code of conduct for special advisers, in line with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The code is available on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk. Alongside establishing the key responsibilities of special advisers, the updated code of conduct for special advisers sets out the standards of behaviour this Government expect of them and formalises the existing policy for managing interests. The code of conduct for special advisers is part of special advisers’ terms and conditions of service.
The Special Adviser Contract
The Government have today published an updated special adviser model contract, which is available on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk. The model contract sets out the terms and conditions that apply to all special advisers appointed by Ministers and employed by Government Departments.
This Government have introduced a small number of changes to the terms of the model contract. These are:
To require special advisers to obtain the required level of security clearance for their role within the first four months of starting in post.
To enable special advisers to leave Government with a severance payment at the start of the pre-election period before a general election—or at the Dissolution of Parliament.
To confirm that special advisers are entitled to an annual review of their salary, and the process for determining any increases in salary.
[HCWS198]
Income tax (charge)
Pat McFadden Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) has confirmed that this is his last appearance at the Dispatch Box, at least in his current guise, so I begin by thanking him for his service to government and to the country. He and I have something in common: we both inherited an awful mess from our predecessors. He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer as the repair man—the adult in the room—and was meant to sort things out after the disaster left by his predecessor. He was supposed to be the antidote to Liz Truss, but in recent days, he has become an ally of Liz Truss, united with her in attacking the OBR. He was brought in to praise the economic institutions, but he has ended up condemning them. However, he cannot hide from the verdict: the OBR has confirmed that the previous Government hid billions of pounds of pressures that they knew about, and the Treasury has given us a full picture of precisely what those pressures added up to.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman states that a full breakdown was provided by the Treasury yesterday, but that is just not true. In fact, the chair of the OBR said on “Sky News” last night:
“Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion”
claim. That was him making it very clear that the OBR does not support and has not endorsed the claim in the Treasury report. Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm, with a simple yes or no, that the OBR does not legitimise that claim?
Pat McFadden
Let me read what the OBR has said:
“The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL, about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve… had this information been made available, a materially different judgement…would have been reached.”
Jeremy Hunt
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman ought to read the next paragraph, in which the OBR says that it is “not possible to judge” how much those pressures would have been offset by savings elsewhere, which demonstrates that they were within the range of the normal cost reductions that a Chief Secretary to the Treasury would make ahead of any Budget.
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman suggests that things got better after February. They did not; they got worse, and that is how we got to £22 billion. This is not just a verdict about what happened but an indictment of the Conservative party’s final period in office. The truth is that, under his watch, the Treasury had stopped doing the basic job of controlling expenditure.
Announcements were made with no money set aside, the asylum and hotel bill was funded by emptying the country’s reserves within the first few months of the financial year, hospital building programmes were announced without the necessary funds set aside to pay for them, a pay award sat on a Secretary of State’s desk while they looked the other way, and compensation schemes were announced without the full funds being set aside to pay for them. That was an irresponsible dereliction of duty that has led to us picking up the pieces and to the right hon. Gentleman attacking the independent watchdog that was set up by his own party. Even his predecessor, the former Member for Spelthorne, admitted this morning that Labour is clearing up the Tory mess. If Conservative Members are more out of touch with reality than the former Member for Spelthorne, let me tell them that that is not a good place to be.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the IFS, which said this morning that the Chancellor
“is not wrong to stress that she got a hospital pass on the public finances.”
Pat McFadden
No, I am not giving way.
The Conservatives talk about their golden legacy, and we heard the former Chancellor read out some of his greatest hits. Who are they kidding? The last Parliament was the worst on record for living standards, with British families worse off than their French and German counterparts. His Government had the second lowest growth in the G7 since the pandemic and the highest inflation in the G7 since the pandemic. They left a prison system overflowing and just days away from collapse, and rather than take responsibility for it, they cut and ran and called an early election.
I have to give the previous Government credit: some things did grow on their watch, such as hospital waiting lists, housing waiting lists, shoplifting, insecure work and the decline of our high streets. That is their record, and it falls to us to fix it and start to rebuild Britain, so there is no point in coming to this Chamber and pretending that people are making it all up.
The former Chancellor talks about business. His party stuffed business—his colleague, the former Prime Minister, said “eff business”, and then the Conservatives carried out the policy. Under them, we had the lowest business investment in the G7. Why? Because of constant chaos in their Governments, meaning that business did not know who would be leading them from one year to the next; because they caved in to their Back Benchers and blocked anything substantial from being built; and because businesses could not hire the workers they needed with so many people on the sick.
This could have been a Budget where we just muddled through—patched up some mistakes made by the Conservative party and hoped something would turn up—but that is not good enough. We have had that time and again. In fact, we have had 14 years of it—long enough to show that that approach is not going to work. The country voted for change, and this was a Budget to deliver change. It is not a time for more of the same; it is a time to choose. We did not duck the challenge or look the other way; we confronted the challenge, because that is what the country needs. This is the moment when the country turns a corner and sets out a proper plan for the years to come.
We did make tax changes in this Budget, which is never an easy thing to do. That was because the first thing we had to do was fix the foundations and put the public finances on a sound footing. With this Budget, we say how we will pay for what we will do. The first fiscal rule announced by the Chancellor is to fund day-to-day spending from the revenue that we raise, a rule that the OBR judges will be met two years early.
The IMF, to which the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash referred, has today welcomed
“the Budget’s focus on boosting growth through a needed increase in public investment while addressing urgent pressures on public services”,
so let me turn to those public services. Secondly, there will be more NHS appointments to get waiting lists and times down; more technology to improve productivity; more prevention to stop people falling ill in the first place; new surgical hubs and diagnostic centres; a hospital-building programme brought from fiction to reality, this time founded on more than hot air; new schools to help children learn; more teachers to bring out the best in every child; and more investment in further education to give people the skills they need. It is investment and reform together—not just more money into the same system, but changing the system for a new age, with productivity targets alongside the extra money.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about welfare spending, but the Conservatives had plenty of time to sort out welfare spending. Their legacy is almost 3 million people out of work because of long-term sickness. The truth is that they did not have a plan, but they do have a record, and again, it falls to us to sort that record out. We will take tough action on welfare fraud, and we will not give up on those who can work and make a contribution, because we understand that when the sick can get treated and when every child of every background has the best chance to learn, that is not just good for them and their families but for the economy as a whole.
Thirdly, this Budget put in place help with the cost of living for millions: a rising minimum wage with extra help for young workers, fuel duty frozen, carers allowed to earn more, the triple lock protected, the household support fund extended to help the poorest, and lower deductions from universal credit. Those are the choices that we made—real help for millions of people.
Finally, we reject the path of decline for investment that the Conservatives were planning. They wanted to cut public investment by a third. That was the right hon. Gentleman’s plan—to once again cut back on the house building, schools, hospitals and transport projects that the country needs. That is a path of decline that has been chosen too often in the past. The Tories do not yet have a leader, and the only policy to come out of their leadership contest so far is to cut maternity pay, but on the question of investment, they do have a position. Budgets are about choices, and yesterday they chose: the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) railed against our new investment rule, and more Conservative Members have spoken out since. What does that mean their position is? New money for housing—opposed. New money for schools—opposed. New money for potholes—opposed. New money for research—opposed. Investment in the future itself—opposed by the Conservative party. I understand the perils of opposition. We have had long enough experience of it, but if the Conservatives really want to run around the country opposing every new investment over the coming four or five years, be our guests.
Yes, this Budget was a big choice, and in opposing the investments within it, the Conservatives have made a big choice too. We will remind them of it, project after project, year after year. They wanted to lock us into the world that voters rejected just four short months ago.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has mentioned the policies, or lack thereof, that have come out of the Tory leadership contest. Unfortunately, I spent an evening watching the GB News debate between the Tory leadership contenders, and the one policy that one of the contenders said she would put in place on day one as Prime Minister was a tax cut for private schools. That is the priority of the modern Conservative party: opposing the investment in this Budget while offering tax cuts for the very richest.
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, although I have to say that his television viewing choices are a little bit different from mine. With regard to education, we have always said that we support aspiration for all children in every type of school.
Our growth plans are about far more than this Budget. They are about planning reform to get Britain building, a challenge that was ducked by the Conservative party year after year. They are about more clean energy for energy security. They are about private investment, with £63 billion of investment announced at our investment summit just a few weeks ago—investors are finally appreciating the stability that has come to the country after the chaos wrought by the Conservative party—and they are about reform of business rates to support our neglected high streets.
This is a big moment for the country. In July, the public did not vote to carry on as we are—they did not vote to continue with the plans of the Conservative party. They voted for change, and this is a Budget for change: not just change in policy, but facing up to the reality of what the Conservative party left behind. It is a Budget to stabilise the public finances, to help people with the cost of living, to begin to turn our public services around, and to start to rebuild Britain. It is a choice between investment and decline—a turning of the page after 14 years. It is a Budget that launches a new chapter for Britain, and we will be proud to vote for it in the Lobby next week.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary staff do excellent work on behalf of the Royal Navy and for our national security, and I pay tribute to them for that work. I have been in contact with the Secretary of State for Defence on this issue. I am hopeful that a resolution can be found on the pay matters currently under discussion between Nautilus, the RMT and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and that the current dispute can be resolved.
Mike Amesbury
I welcome the efforts of the Cabinet Office and other Government Departments—unlike the previous Government, who sat on their hands—to resolve this dispute in the not-too-distant future. I urge Ministers to double their efforts with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury.
Pat McFadden
Government officials are in negotiations with the trade unions. We want to see an end to the dispute that results in a fair pay offer for the workers involved and delivers value for money for the taxpayer. That is what we will try to achieve.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
This Government were elected to deliver for people throughout the United Kingdom, and whatever political differences we have in different parts of the UK, the public expect us to work together for the common good. That is why we held the Council of the Nations and Regions recently in Edinburgh, which was focused on investment and good jobs across the country.
Mr Forster
I am sure we all agree that local communities know what is best for their own affairs. Will the Minister formalise the council of Ministers so that the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, along with regional leaders in England, can meet regularly to shape their communities?
Pat McFadden
The idea is that the Council of the Nations and Regions, which met in Edinburgh the other week, will meet twice a year. However, I believe that these relationships are about more than formal meetings. It is important, underneath the formalities, to establish as good and as normal a working relationship as we possibly can.
Graeme Downie
This new Labour Government have already outlined that they are going to invest in sectors vital to the economy of Dunfermline and Dollar, including renewables, defence and engineering. That investment can only fully deliver if there is alignment with the Scottish Government to deliver the pipeline of skills needed for local people to fill those jobs, which is an agenda that the SNP has singularly failed to address in 17 years in power. Will the Minister outline how this Labour Government will co-ordinate with and press the SNP to ensure that the opportunity of this investment is fully realised?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress investment. Investment was the theme of the first meeting; it was also the theme of the investment summit held last week. Through that, we were able to announce over £60 billion of inward investment to the United Kingdom. This will benefit people in all parts of the country. My hon. Friend is right to say that to make the most of it we have to give people the skills to do the jobs this investment will bring.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
As we have heard, last week we had the Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to modernise the Lords. We have also delivered on our manifesto commitment to hold the first Council of the Nations and Regions. We are working hard to deliver justice for the victims of the infected blood scandal. We have published a written statement today on the implementation of the UK biological security strategy. Finally, we have set out the position on the right balance of flexible working and time in the office for civil servants.
Sonia Kumar
What plans does the Cabinet Office have to support small and medium-sized enterprises in building resilience to future economic shocks and crises, to ensure that they can continue to operate under difficult conditions?
Pat McFadden
Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. Our agenda for growth will help small businesses. We are determined to support them. I assure my hon. Friend that they are an important part of our resilience strategy and our resilience review. Earlier this week, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) met a range of businesses to discuss shared goals in respect of resilience and to ensure that they can have input into the strategy we are preparing.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster provide an update on the current situation for British nationals in Lebanon, including the measures being taken to ensure their safety? Are there any plans for further evacuations, given the ongoing instability in that region?
Pat McFadden
The situation in Lebanon is serious, and there are several thousand UK nationals in Lebanon. The Foreign Office advice for some time has been simple: leave now. The Government have chartered several flights to help UK nationals to leave. We are also running a “register your presence” site, to ensure we can track anyone who is in country and have the best possible communications with them. We have made preparations for other evacuation measures, should they be necessary for the protection of our citizens in Lebanon.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for that answer. May I echo from the Opposition Benches that the correct approach for British nationals is to leave now, rather than to rely on the Government to take further steps for them? However, in the event that the situation deteriorates further, what contingency plans do the Government have in place to ensure the swift and safe evacuation of British nationals, particularly in high-risk areas?
Pat McFadden
We have been monitoring the situation closely for some months. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House that the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and all parts of Government are putting in place the necessary measures, should the situation on the ground change to a point where we judge that more needs to be done to get people out of the country.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
Whether workers are working in-sourced or outsourced, we always want them to have a good deal and a fair deal at work. That is why the Government brought forward this week a powerful Bill to improve employment rights for people right across the board. We believe that when people go to work they deserve fair pay and decent conditions.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Pat McFadden
It is very important that the voter ID system does not prevent people who have a legitimate right to vote from exercising their democratic right, so we are keeping it under review, and we are already making a change to make it easier for veterans to get the ID necessary to vote.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
As you can imagine, Mr Speaker, the people of Scotland are beside themselves with excitement—I would go so far as to say we are fair giddy—at the prospect of receiving a visit from the Prime Minister’s special envoy. As we prepare the red carpet and the massed pipe bands to welcome her, may I ask exactly what was the Cabinet Office’s role in the creation of the post, when we will see a job description published, and when the special envoy will finally take up the post officially?
Pat McFadden
I thought the hon. Member would be joining me in satisfaction at a nil-nil draw away from home last night. As for the personnel matter that he raised, all I will say is that I am enormously grateful to the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff for her efforts as chief of staff. I do believe that we want good, normal working relationships with the Scottish Government, and anything to do with the post will be announced in due course.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The provision of blue-light escorts is clearly a matter of operational policing, but last week my colleagues on the London Assembly wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asking for an inquiry into the provision of tickets to politicians, including the Labour Mayor of London, and the pressure that was then applied to the Metropolitan police to provide an escort to Taylor Swift. Will the right hon. Gentleman conduct a review so that we can see what happened and ensure that, if mistakes were made, they are rectified and this does not happen again?
Pat McFadden
These are operational decisions for the police, but I am glad that the person who is currently the biggest pop star in the world was able to play in London, particularly following the threat of a terrorist attack at her previous concerts in Austria. I am glad that the show went on.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that we are coming to the end of Whistleblowing Awareness Week. Civil servants and others are Ministers’ best friends. They are the people who can indicate where to find evidence of fraud, corruption and other criminal activity. May I press Ministers to create the office of the whistleblower, to give new legal protection, to normalise speaking out and to promote greater public awareness of whistleblowing rights, demonstrating the importance of whistleblowers in a fair, open and transparent society?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to two things: the good work that civil servants do and the valuable role that whistleblowers play. That is why the last time we were in government, we legislated for legal protection for whistleblowers. It is important that people can come forward without fear of what they have to reveal.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome yesterday’s publication of the child poverty taskforce framework. Is the Minister able to say more about the delivery of the strategy, other than that it will come out in spring?
Pat McFadden
This shows the importance of the issue to the Government. The last time we were in office we reduced child poverty; it is an issue dear to our hearts. That is why the strategy is coming forward and why Ministers are working hard on it. We have been clear since we took office that while we want economic growth throughout the country, we also want the benefits to be felt by people in every part of the country and in every income group.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I am proud to be part of a mission-led Government, but mission-led government is not just about missions; it is about how the Government do that. Does the Minister agree that it should be data-driven?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Here, in the spirit of the exchanges this week, I want to pay tribute to something the previous Government did, which was to improve the data operation at the heart of government. That does help when the Government are forming policy. We want to build on that and use data. It is important that we modernise how government works. The accurate use of data can help us to make better policy and that is what we want to do.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Almost 29,000 families in Scotland benefited from maternity pay last year, worth over £200 million. Does the Minister share my concern about suggestions from a Conservative party leadership candidate that it should be reduced?
Pat McFadden
I very much share my hon. Friend’s concern. In fact, the only economic policy we have had so far from the Conservative leadership contest has been the suggestion that we reduce maternity pay. That will do nothing for families, nothing for mothers and children, and nothing for the good operation of our economy. I hope they think twice about that suggestion.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Ahead of any Budget, there is always talk about tough decisions. Could the Minister remind us why we are in this difficult position in the first place, and will he please update us on progress on clawing back covid fraud, where we saw taxpayers’ money being handed over to former Ministers’ mates?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We knew we would inherit a difficult position, but it was much more difficult than we thought when we came into office. Anybody who objects to difficult decisions announced in the Budget next week should know where the responsibility for those lie: squarely on the shoulders of the Conservative party. It falls to us to clean up the mess we have inherited from the Conservatives. That you will hear more about when the Chancellor gets to her feet next week.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Over the last few years we have seen an increase in attacks by foreign Governments on UK cyber-security. Will the Minister please update us on what steps his Department is taking to ensure our public services across the UK are fully protected?
Pat McFadden
This is vital work for the Government. We have a combination of legacy systems with vulnerabilities and, of course, constant investment in new systems to ensure our public services can work in the most modern way. It is really important that we guard against either foreign state interference or other malign actors who would try to disable institutions and disable public services through cyber-attacks. That is an important part of resilience and an important part of protecting services for the public good.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend tell me what steps he is taking to keep Scotland at the heart of the Union and keep Ayrshire’s economy growing?
Pat McFadden
I believe that people in Scotland have tired of the politics of grievance and division. They expect Governments, whatever their political colour, to work together to promote economic growth, get inward investment in, get good jobs for people and have good public services. Would that not be a refreshing contrast to some of the division we have had in recent years?