Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pat McFadden and Alex Burghart

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

We all know the rules for civil servants. I think I know who he is referring to, and let me anticipate the hon. Member’s next question: the person is doing a wonderful job.

[Alex Burghart]

Well, I will just fill in the House. For those who are not as well informed as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the simple fact is that senior civil servants should not be engaged in public fundraising from public speaking for political parties. It has been reported that on 23 June, Lord Mandelson, who the Government classify as a senior civil servant, spoke at a Labour fundraising event. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster assure the House that this breach will be properly investigated and treated?

[Pat McFadden]

I believe there has been correspondence to the Cabinet Secretary about this. He will reply in due course, but let me add this: Lord Mandelson is doing an excellent job as our ambassador to the United States. He was integral to the negotiation of the trade agreement with the United States and is a great asset to the Government and the country.

Government Resilience Action Plan

Debate between Pat McFadden and Alex Burghart

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of his statement and the associated documentation. I also thank him for the date on which the UK emergency alert will be tested—he can only have chosen it to notify the country that it is my birthday. I shall very much look forward to the alarm at 3 pm.

I understand why the Government want to plan for resilience. It is understandable that the Government would want to come forward with a plan, faced with the collapsing economy, a collapsing Government, capital flight, spiralling borrowing costs and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s warning this morning that the Chancellor’s latest U-turns have left Britain more vulnerable and less able to respond to future crises. As the Minister said, the plan published today builds on the work of the previous Government on the roll-out of the national emergency alert system, the expansion of biosecurity preparedness, investment in flood protection and ensuring better cross-departmental collaboration on resilience and emergency preparedness.

The Minister said in his statement that he was looking for an assessment “on a continuous basis”. The report sets out the intention for data collection in this area, but it would be useful to hear by when that new data framework will be available for us to scrutinise. He said that he wished to enable

“the whole of society to take action”,

but I rather wonder how he intends the whole of society to find out about this. The plan calls on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to provide guidance on developing cohesion strategies and to monitor tensions. However, that does not sit easily with the fact that the Government are not currently tackling Islamist extremism properly, that they dragged their feet on a national inquiry into grooming gangs, and that they seem to be bringing forward a highly controversial definition of Islamophobia.

The Minister referred to

“improving core public sector resilience”.

That is certainly to be welcomed, particularly on a day on which it has been announced that resident doctors have voted in favour of strikes, which will result in industrial action in January. It was notable that the plan does not mention an ability to deal with widespread industrial action. Are the Government planning for the eventuality of a general strike?

The Minister also mentioned the increase in defence spending, which we know is a form of smoke and mirrors. We understand that the 1.5% in addition to the hypothetical 3.5% includes things such as tunnels and roads, but we have not been provided with a baseline for what is currently spent in those areas. How will we know when the Government have got to 1.5%, or indeed whether they are at 1.5% already?

As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out, the previous Government took steps to extend our capabilities and published the first UK biological security strategy. I was interested that, in this strategy, there is a reference to exploring the utility of waste water analysis, which had great success during the pandemic. Does the Minister intend to bring that back on a wide scale? It would be welcome if that was the case.

I am pleased that the Government are pressing ahead with the biothreats radar, which was a Conservative idea, but two years after our announcement there is still no go-live date. This could be a major asset to national resilience, but we need to know when it will come online. The CDL also told the House that a fully operational radar will give us near real-time warning of emerging pathogens, but the World Health Organisation is still reminding China to hand over its basic virological data on covid-19. Can he guarantee that the radar will allow the UK to independently verify when a state actor chooses to withhold or delay information?

I was interested to read about Exercise Pegasus, the preparations for pandemic exercise. However, as the Minister will know, different types of pandemic behave in different ways. Which pandemics were tested in Pegasus? Which were tested in Alkarab? It is important that the House understands what the Government are looking at in that regard.

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful to the Opposition spokesman for his questions. Several things have contributed to the need for a fresh look at all of this: the experience of covid, the changing geopolitical situation and the changing threat picture. It is important to be both flexible and dynamic when considering resilience.

Let me turn to the shadow Minister’s specific points. In advance of his birthday on 7 September, I wish him many happy returns. He asked about data collection. That does not have a date; it is a constant effort. The capacity to use data in a better way today than perhaps we could have done in the past is an additional weapon in our armoury.

In terms of the whole of society finding out about this, we have good, sensible advice on gov.uk/prepare. I encourage the public to look at it, and I hope that these preparation measures become normal for people in the future. The strength of community is very important in community resilience.

The shadow Minister referred to strikes in the NHS. We have given the NHS significant financial support and made a very fair pay offer. We very much value the work that doctors do. We hope that everyone in the NHS realises that we are a Government who support the NHS and want to work with the staff, and that industrial action will contribute nothing to that goal.

The shadow Minister referred to biological security. We are making important investments into that, including the opening of the new Weybridge lab announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a couple of weeks ago.

Exercise Pegasus has not happened yet; it will happen in the autumn. However, the shadow Minister is right on one thing: it is important not to fight the last war and assume that the next pandemic will behave in the same way as the last one. We have to be flexible in our response and ensure that we plan for different kinds of scenarios.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pat McFadden and Alex Burghart

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

The Government’s own cyber experts Innovate UK have warned the Government that the proposed Chinese embassy at the Royal Mint threatens to compromise the telephone and internet exchange that serves the financial City of London. The experts are now telling the Government what everyone else has known all along: the super-embassy poses a super-risk. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister’s office has said that any representations on the planning application have to be made available to the applicants. Perhaps the real Deputy Prime Minister can clear this up: are the Government seriously saying that if MI5 or GCHQ have concerns about security on this site, those concerns will have to be passed to the Chinese Communist party, or has the Deputy Prime Minister got it wrong?

[Pat McFadden]

When it comes to both engagement with China and with an issue like this, we will engage properly while always bearing in mind our own national security considerations. The approach we do not adopt is to withdraw from engagement, which the previous Government did for a number of years—flip-flopping from that to the previous era that they called the golden era. We will engage with China when it is in our economic interest, but we will always bear our national security interests in mind.

[Alex Burghart]

The previous Government did not engage—sorry, they did not disengage. At the heart of this are two simple facts. First, the Government already know that this site is a security risk. It is a security risk to the City of London and, through it, our economy and the economies of all nations that trade in London. Secondly, the Government have the power to block it. Ireland and Australia have both already blocked similar embassy developments. Why are this Government too weak to act?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman was right the first time when he said that the previous Government did not engage enough. As I said, a decision on this application will be taken with full consideration of our national security considerations. Those considerations are always part of these decisions, and our engagement with China and other countries. Where I agree with him is that when it comes to national cyber-security, we must bear in mind state threats as well as non-state threats, and that is very much part of our thinking as we respond to what is going on in the cyber-sphere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already told the House about plans for a reduction in civil service numbers. Since he came into office, how many civil service roles in the Cabinet Office and its agencies have been eliminated?

[Pat McFadden]

We hope to see a reduction of around 2,000 in Cabinet Office numbers over the next few years. We have instituted a voluntary exit scheme, which will make the management of headcount easier and will come into force very soon.

[Alex Burghart]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster very skilfully talked about the future, rather than the past year. I will let him know that during the past year, the number of roles in his Department and its agencies has increased by 828. That cannot give the House a great deal of confidence that his future cuts will be effective. Will he guarantee that that is a one-off and that he will go back and ensure that the Cabinet Office is actually reduced in size?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman was part of a Government who regularly produced headcount targets for civil servants that were about as reliable as the immigration targets that the Conservatives also produced. I have made it clear that we do not seek a particular headcount target; it depends on what people do. We are trying to reduce the overhead spend, but we are prepared to hire more people when it comes to frontline public service delivery. That is why we are hiring more teachers and getting the waiting lists down. We are not adopting the hon. Gentleman’s approach; therefore, I will not fall into the trap that he is trying to set.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pat McFadden and Alex Burghart

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Why are the Government scared of allowing the National Security Adviser to give evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy?

[Pat McFadden]

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be aware that accountability to Parliament is through Ministers. The Prime Minister is regularly accountable to Parliament, and I am very happy to appear before the Committee at any convenient time.

[Alex Burghart]

I am sure the Committee will be delighted to hear that. However, there is a precedent in this area: David Frost, now Lord Frost, was an adviser when he gave evidence to the Committee in May 2020. The Committee is unanimous: the new adviser must appear. The Government�s own Osmotherly rules say that Ministers should agree to a request for evidence from any

�named official, including special advisers�.

This Government promised greater transparency. Why are they breaking another promise?

[Pat McFadden]

Special advisers are appointed by the Minister whom they advise, and the line of accountability is through Ministers to Parliament. That is why the Prime Minister takes questions every week at this Dispatch Box. The National Security Adviser is an adviser to the Prime Minister, and as I said, I am also very happy�as are other Ministers, I imagine�to appear before the Committee at a convenient time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pat McFadden and Alex Burghart

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pat McFadden and Alex Burghart

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Debate between Pat McFadden and Alex Burghart

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.