Draft Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Amendment of List of Responders) Order 2023

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 General Committees

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Twigg. I am pleased to be speaking to this statutory instrument.

Labour will be supporting the instrument; these two additions to the list of responders—the Coal Authority and the Met Office—are sensible and necessary. However, the legislation gives rise to more questions over the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and how ready we as a country are for the next major emergency. Two of the questions raised by the legislation are: why is it so late, and why are only two more organisations being added to the list?

The Civil Contingencies Act is an excellent piece of legislation and a Labour invention, introduced in 2004, but it is important to note that the Government at the time recognised that it would need to change and adapt over time. Between 2004 and 2010, the Government attempted to improve and develop it; sadly, since 2010 it has been left to gather dust and deprioritised by successive Conservative Governments. This is only the second SI introduced on the Act in the past 10 years, despite all the threats and dangers that we have faced and the learning from them, including the pandemic. The changes made on those occasions were piecemeal and fairly inconsequential.

It is not just the Opposition saying that. I have been speaking to experts for over a year now and finding out more and more about this interesting and necessary field of government. Those experts include members of the National Preparedness Commission, who are also concerned about the lack of proactive development of civil contingencies policy since 2010.

The Minister highlighted the national resilience framework published by the Government just before Christmas, and there is also the post-implementation review of the Civil Contingencies Act that was carried out last year. Notwithstanding the fact that it was late, why is this just a framework? Why is it not a strategy, as originally promised? Where is the detail and the meat behind it? More to the point, why has it taken a deadly pandemic to force any kind of action or review of the Act? The whole point of civil contingencies is to continually plan ahead, think ahead and deliver ahead, but all the Government seem to do is react when it is too late.

I return to the purpose of the instrument. It is all well and good adding these two further organisations to the list of responders but, going ahead, a more fundamental issue needs to be addressed: communication between all these responders. As the National Preparedness Commission has pointed out in its review of the Act, the mechanism for effectively building relationships between the local resilience forums and the category 2 responders—all responders—that can work in a crisis is very weak. The Minister highlighted the often inconsistent and ad hoc nature of that. In fact, the report says that category 2 responders are seen as second-class citizens, which is eroding the sense of partnership on which resilience depends. Resilience depends entirely on partnerships that spring into action to prepare and deliver in an emergency. We saw that most acutely during the pandemic, with whole sectors brought into the covid-19 response on a scale never seen before.

I advocate a shift in the Government’s thinking towards investing more in improving the relationship between category 1 and category 2 responders, and supporting local resilience forums. We could add as many organisations as we wanted to the list, but if they were not ready and had little or no relationship with category 1 responders, it would all be pointless. On that point of adding more organisations, does the Minister plan to do that? Will we be back again next week and the week after?

The National Preparedness Commission has recommended adding several more organisations to the list, including the Animal and Plant Health Agency, the Food Standards Agency, the internal drainage boards, operators of COMAH and REPPIR sites—under the control of major accident hazards, and the radiation emergency preparedness and public information regulations—the UK oil pipeline system, the Oil and Pipelines Agency, the Crown Estate, and St John Ambulance and other charitable ambulance services. It further recommended that the status of the British Red Cross as an auxiliary to the UK Government, with its particular and valuable capabilities in planning, needs assessment and humanitarian assistance for emergencies, should be recognised in statutory guidance.

Does the Minister intend to bring forward further instruments to add more agencies to that important list? What other reforms are being brought forward following the post-implementation review?

To summarise, we support the draft instrument, but it cannot end here. A lot more work needs to be done in this area, and we need to go further and deeper if we are to get an Act that delivers on its purpose of keeping all British residents and citizens safe. I will be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on the questions I have asked.

House of Lords Reform

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this debate. I often say that a debate is timely, but this debate really is: we are at a crux of time in our country when we are looking at who we want to serve us. There is a real crisis of trust in our democratic institutions, so it is only right that we talk about this issue.

I am proud to be given this opportunity to speak about Labour’s plans to make our Parliament fit for the 21st century. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for his contribution and I agree with him. I speak as a democrat, proud to be part of a democracy but shocked to be part of only half a democracy at many times. There is a democratic deficit in an unelected Chamber belonging to a bygone era that undermines the value of the expertise that has been rightly pointed out by many Members in the debate. Change is needed.

I cannot continue without paying tribute to our tireless Labour peers. Time and again, they have stood up against the Government’s worst excesses, whether that is by blocking attempts to strip refugees of their rights and dignity in the Nationality and Borders Bill or by inflicting a record 14 defeats on the Government’s anti-protest clauses in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Many lords are expert and hardworking, and deserve the respect of us all on the Opposition Benches.

In the past year the House of Lords has considered 5,244 changes to 100 Bills. Members in the House of Lords raised concerns, pressed the Government for action, questioned decisions with debates, asked daily oral questions and tabled urgent questions, in more than 3,350 hours of business. We are not saying that the House of Lords does not do a lot of hard work or that lords are not, often, experts in their field; we are saying that the Lords could be far better with a democratic mandate.

The time has come for change. We need a Lords that is properly accountable, where the expertise is strengthened by that democratic mandate, and that is up to the task of rebuilding the whole of Britain after 13 years of Conservative failure. The next Labour Government will scrap the House of Lords and replace it with a new second Chamber that truly represents people across the UK.

[Anthony Mangnall]

May I ask for a bit of clarification? Is the hon. Lady saying that the Labour party is wholly committed to a wholly elected Chamber of the House of Lords? If she is, does that mean there will be a referendum, as has been promised on previous occasions when Labour policy has suggested large constitutional change?

[Fleur Anderson]

I do not think the hon. Member is alone in having questions about our policy, which is to have a conversation with the British people to decide what the future policies would be. I am not going to be outlining all the dotted i’s and crossed t’s of Labour party policy, because that would be wrong. We need to have further conversation about the result of our conversations. Later in my speech, I will go into what will underpin that.

The SNP has used this debate about the second Chamber for game playing, to undermine the strength of the Union, and has denied Scottish people a voice in the second Chamber by boycotting it—by just leaving it alone. It has no interest in making Westminster or devolution work. Labour will work with the Scottish people to give Scotland and other parts of the UK an even greater say in UK-wide legislation through a new second Chamber. Under a Labour Government, a second Chamber that is more representative will give Scottish people more of a mandate to deliver for Scotland and undo the damage caused by the SNP and the Conservatives.

There are three reasons why we need reform, the first of which is trust. Trust in Westminster is at an all-time low, and in many ways who can blame the public? Never before has the privilege of power been used and abused for personal gain so much and so frequently. The mantra of “It’s one rule for them and another for us” is said far too frequently; people should not feel like that about their elected bodies, and the Lords is a prime example.

Take the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). He recommended 87 new life peerages, but two of those people have not made maiden speeches, even though one was appointed in September 2019 and the other in July 2020. His brazen attempt to subvert democracy by rewarding donors, lackeys and friends makes him the latest in a long line of Conservative Prime Ministers who have gamed the system by installing a conveyor belt of their cronies into the House of Lords, undermining it as a result. Instead of rewarding Conservative donors, we should be rebuilding trust in politics.

[Kirsty Blackman]

How many peers did the most recent Labour Prime Minister recommend?

[Fleur Anderson]

I do not know, but we are talking about the system. It should not be the patronage of the Prime Minister that gets to recommend those who vote on our behalf; the people should decide who is going to make those decisions. That is the point I will be making, whichever party the Prime Minister comes from.

In the past seven years, every former Conservative party treasurer bar one has been offered a seat in the Lords, and 22 of the party’s biggest donors have been made lords since 2010. We cannot keep on sheepishly asking for the trust of the people: we need to show how things will be different. Reforming the second Chamber has to be part of that.

The second reason is democracy. Devolution was a major achievement of the last Labour Government, and the next Labour Government are committed to continuing that proud democratising tradition. We have shown that we will put our money where our mouth is when elected. We must go further than the devolution that has already taken place, which includes making the second Chamber of our Parliament fit for the 21st century. It must be more democratic and accountable, and therefore effective, and must accurately represent the people of our diverse regions and nations across the United Kingdom.

We need reform that retains expertise, yes, but the right expertise from throughout the country, not just expertise in knowing the right people. Consecutive Conservative Prime Ministers have ridden roughshod over the system of appointing people to the House of Lords. If things continue as they are, there will not be many experts left; instead, the House of Lords will be packed to the rafters with those who owe their place to favours and dodgy dealings rather than talent and expertise. For too many, a peerage is a fancy title or an Instagram photo opportunity, which undermines the work done by so many hard-working peers.

Hansard tells us all we need to know. There are 41 Members in the House of Lords who have only made one contribution since the beginning of the 1992-93 Session—one contribution in 30 years—yet those Members can claim more than £300 a day for attending and can vote on any issue, changing the lives of people up and down the country. They are not accountable; there is no check or balance. Those Members do not have to look into people’s eyes and be accountable for what they have done, how many times they have attended, what they have said and what they have voted on.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I think the hon. Lady mentioned 41 lords; could she help me with something, because it is important to be accurate? Of those 41, how many have claimed allowances, how many have actually voted and how many have attended the Chamber at any point? How many of them actually have parliamentary passes? I ask because we need to be clear about this matter; otherwise, someone can start setting a narrative that is not accurate about the important work that is done in the Lords.

[Fleur Anderson]

The fact is that they have the right to come and vote if they want to, the right to attend and the right to take the money for their daily attendance, no matter what happens. It is just a job for life. They have the notoriety and the title, which gives them some credibility, yet they are not doing the work that should accompany their position. They should be accountable. If they are not attending, not taking the money and not voting, they should do the right thing and resign their positions.

YouGov polling from August last year shows that the public have had enough. Only 6% of British people favoured a House of Lords that is mostly appointed, whereas 48% supported a House of Lords that is mostly elected. Our plans are not just democracy for democracy’s sake, though, even though that would be reason enough. That brings me to the third reason for why reforms are vital. We cannot fix the economy without fixing our institutions and we cannot bring about the social change that we need in this country without fixing our institutions. They are fundamental to our decision making. Inclusive growth must go hand in hand with inclusive governance. A second Chamber packed with the mates of former Conservative Prime Ministers, all of whom have given up on the levelling-up agenda as far as I can see, will not deliver equal growth and opportunity for all nations and regions.

Labour will consult members of the public from throughout the UK to determine the exact size and make-up of the new second Chamber. We launched the commission on the UK’s future, which was chaired by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and involved people from throughout the country, including people from academia, local government, the legal profession and trade unions. As a result, we have articulated three clear principles that will underlie our vision of reform. First, Members of any new Chamber should be elected by voters rather than being appointed by politicians; secondly, it should be truly representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and play an important role in safeguarding the devolution settlement; and thirdly, it must remain a second and secondary Chamber and continue to have a role complementary to the work of the Commons. It will not replace the Commons.

We have to earn back trust. That will happen only with a Labour Government. Only Labour has the ideas and the credibility to fix our politics as well as our economy, and we are the only party that sees the intrinsic connection between the two and that will make the change that is needed.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister and remind him to leave a couple of minutes for Patrick Grady to speak at the end.

Illegal Immigration

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. A big part of that difference is how we are treating Albania. That will be changed as a result of our new guidance and deal. More broadly, one of the changes that we have made today is to increase the threshold that someone has to meet to be considered a modern slave. It was based on simply a suspicion that someone may be; we are changing that to make sure that there is objective evidence that they are. That change will help us to close down some of those grant rates, but there is more work to do and that is what our legislation will deliver.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The white list of countries designated safe is not new, and Albania has been on that list since 2014, so there is nothing new about this announcement. I welcome the clearing of the backlog. The Prime Minister just said that he knew that workers would be employed within the next nine to 12 months, and the whole backlog would be cleared from the current 100,000—it was 3,000 when Labour was in power—in the same 12 months. So without the immigration workers there, how will this circle be squared and how will be the backlog be cleared?

[The Prime Minister]

I urge the hon. Lady to go and check her figures. It was certainly a lot higher than that under the last Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) said, we are currently rejecting only 45% of Albanian asylum seekers, compared to all European countries, which reject more like 98% to 100%. The changes we have made today will ensure that our rate increases up to the levels that we see elsewhere. That is as a result of the new deal that we have negotiated with Albania, which will give more comfort to our caseworkers. Combined with the new guidance that will be issued, that will mean that we should, as we want to, return the vast majority of Albanian migrants when they come here. They should not be here; Albania is a safe and prosperous country and they should go back there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to shadow Minister.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

During the winter, severe weather or any emergency, the British people rely on the Government to be more prepared and better ready to respond than they were for covid. The national resilience strategy was promised in last year’s integrated review and then promised again for the autumn. Then we had the summer of ministerial chaos. Autumn is over, winter is definitely here, and the Minister has just promised a new approach on emergencies. Can he tell us when to expect this very important strategy?

[Oliver Dowden]

The short answer to the hon. Lady’s question is imminently. I have cleared the framework and it is receiving cross-Government agreement. I hope to publish it very shortly. I would, however, like to reassure her that that is not the only thing we are doing. We have already completed three out of the seven initial deliverables. I will chair the first meeting of the UK resilience forum early in the new year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

We have seen in eye-watering detail this week the price the taxpayer pays when the Government lose control of procurement during a crisis and panic: billions spent on unusable personal protective equipment written off; millions spent on storing that PPE; and millions pocketed by greedy shell companies that failed to deliver. The Government have a responsibility to uphold basic standards and, especially in an emergency, to restore normal controls as soon as possible, so can the Minister explain why the Procurement Bill hands Ministers more power over direct awards than ever before?

[Alex Burghart]

The Bill sets out a new paradigm for public services to procure in this country. It will move us away from “most economically advantageous” tender to “most advantageous” tender. That means we will be able to take account of things such as transparency, social responsibility and fairness in a way that was not possible under EU legislation.

G20

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely will do that. May I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his reappointment as a trade envoy to Indonesia? It is a region that he knows particularly well. He has done fantastic work in deepening our bilateral relationship with that country, which will play an increasingly important role in the global economy as the third largest democracy, one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, and soon to be a top-five economy. It is right that we have deep relationships within Indonesia, and I thank him for his part in making sure that that is happening.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Water and sanitation are a major global crisis, causing conflict, migration, inequality for women and girls, and poor health outcomes that are easily preventable. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he had conversations with other G20 members about the water and sanitation crisis, and will he reverse the 80% cuts made by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to water and sanitation projects?

[The Prime Minister]

The conversations I had with other leaders were incredibly appreciative of the role that the United Kingdom is playing in helping to tackle suffering, poverty and poor sanitation around the world. What was highlighted in particular was our recent commitment of £1 billion to the Global Fund, as well as our track record of supporting countries to alleviate famine. Those are things that everyone in this House should be proud of and this Government will continue to champion them.

Papers Relating to the Home Secretary

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I am extremely pleased to close this debate on an important motion. It is important to my constituents in Putney, Southfields and Roehampton, who have stopped me on the tube recently and said, “What is going on?” They are perplexed about what is being allowed to happen and especially about the issues around the recent reshuffle and its returns.

[Lee Anderson]

rose—

[Fleur Anderson]

I am just starting off.

The public look to the Home Office to keep them, their families and their communities safe, but the Prime Minister’s decision to reappoint the Home Secretary against advice just six days after she broke the ministerial code and had to resign, and in the light of the further reports about security and code breaches, is shockingly irresponsible. We have heard a full, detailed list of questions that we still do not have answers to. I hope to hear answers to them in the Minister’s closing speech.

We heard powerful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), who listed several serious questions that need to answered, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), who outlined the serious concerns raised by her constituents that need to be addressed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who raised the questionable decisions made by the Home Secretary—that is what is underneath this whole debate today—and the need to appoint an ethics adviser. Perhaps we will hear about that from the Minister later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) gave a forensic analysis of the current Home Secretary’s history of leaking being investigated, and the discrepancies in the timeline: when she reported the mistaken email, the selective information given in the letter to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and the deficiencies in those letters. That letter and the deficiencies in it are one of the reasons why the Opposition called for this debate and for the documents to be made public.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) underlined the importance of trust and the need to rebuild the trust of our constituents in the Government after recent months—years even—of the Conservative Government. We need to rebuild trust and that is why we need to see the documents. The judgment of the Prime Minister is being called into question, as my hon. Friend outlined, and the country deserves high standards.

Let me be clear: these are serious questions for the Prime Minister. This month’s Prime Minister promised

“integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”,

but the unravelling of the Home Secretary’s story throws all three of those into doubt. There are serious discrepancies in the letter to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, which I think releasing the documents would help to show. The written ministerial statement leaked by the Home Secretary, which is central to these allegations and issues, was sent on purpose to a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and, by mistake, to someone else. That surely throws up lots of questions about what else the Home Secretary is sending out and to whom.

Did the Prime Minister know that the Home Secretary had previously used her personal email on six other occasions when he made this appointment? Did the Prime Minister know about the review into her use of personal and Government IT, and was he presented with the findings before he reappointed her? Did he know about the very serious allegations that the Home Secretary was repeatedly leaking sensitive information when she was Attorney General? Did he know of any other breaches that are not currently in the public domain? Has he seen the contents of the Cabinet Office leak inquiry report? Has he been advised of any further breaches of the ministerial code over the handling of events at Manston? Why has the Prime Minister appointed someone with such a cavalier approach to the security of documents and such a history of leaking, to such an important position for national security? All those questions could be answered right now by the Minister without making any personal information about appointments public. They could just be answered right now and I think that would go a long way to restoring trust. The Prime Minister has an opportunity today to definitively prove he has nothing to hide, or he can Whip those on the Government Benches to vote against this motion. We would then have to assume that there is something to hide.

This is a narrow debate, as has been said many times, and specifically so. It asks only that certain papers be laid before the House within 10 sitting days, so that the decision to reappoint the Home Secretary just six days after resigning can be made fully transparent. We are asking to see only the risk assessment, the documents about security breaches and any leak inquiries, submissions made or advice relating to the appointment, and that if redactions need to be made, understandably so, any unredacted materials are made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

In his opening remarks, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) said that sharing appointment documents would undermine the appointment system. We are not asking for all documents in all cases to be shared. This is a very exceptional and unusual appointment just six days after a ministerial resignation, so the process is already undermined. The allegations will continue to dog the Home Secretary unless we can fully find out what has been going on. I hope that those documents would restore the trust that has been lost.

It is not just the Opposition who are asking serious questions. The Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), also wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 3 November to ask many questions about the reappointment of the Home Secretary and about many procedural issues. He has written a list of six serious questions that I hope will be answered soon.

Amid all the chaos, it is timely to remind ourselves that there is still no ethics adviser in post. The Prime Minister said that one of the first things that he would do was to appoint a new ethics adviser. The previous Prime Minister said that she did not even need one, but no one believed that. A Cabinet Office Minister also promised me in a Westminster Hall debate on Monday 17 October that an ethics adviser would be appointed very shortly. The Prime Minister has so far not appointed one, but has instead appointed a Home Secretary who resigned over security breaches and an Immigration Minister who admitted acting unlawfully in office. The Minister at the centre of all these allegations remains on the Government Front Bench—it is just “Carry on Conservatives”. Where is the promised new ethics adviser? Why the delay when we are again seeing breaches of the ministerial code left, right and centre? Has the position been offered to anyone or to a succession of people who have said, “No, the work load is too much. We can’t take this on”? Will the Minister update the House today?

The Conservative Government have instead relegated national security to an afterthought, at times an inconvenience and something to be worked around. The Opposition have secured this debate not only because the allegations are very serious in their own right and we need to know more, but because the Home Secretary’s actions and appointment indicate a pattern of behaviour by the Prime Minister in the way that he is making decisions.

There have been allegations that the former Prime Minister used her personal phone for Government business. There are now revelations about the actions of the Cabinet Minister—the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson)—and that is relevant to this motion, because that pattern of behaviour cannot become normal. We have to draw a line.

[Robin Millar]

Have we not just heard the real reason for this motion? It is nothing to do with the Home Secretary or even immigration; it is all to do with trying to establish a pattern of behaviour in the Prime Minister, because the Labour party is playing political games.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, because we are absolutely seeking to establish whether there is a pattern of behaviour by the Prime Minister in appointing people to the Cabinet who should not be there because of their history of leaks and misbehaviour. That cannot be acceptable. It undermines integrity, which the Prime Minister was talking about. Let me remind colleagues, including the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), that the Prime Minister has reappointed to Cabinet the man who, in 2019, was sacked as Secretary of State for Defence after a leak investigation. That pattern of behaviour cannot be allowed to continue.

What does this pattern of behaviour show? It appears to indicate that there is no sin too serious, no leak too large and no text too ill-tempered for a Tory to find their way back to the Cabinet table. That is no way to run a country. Is there just a chronic shortage of talent in the Conservative party? Do those who seem to find their way back know where the skeletons are buried? The public will ask those questions unless the documents are made public, and we need to hear them. Unless we see the papers and have reassurance about national security concerns, the public will be left fearing the worst. It is time for the truth. I challenge Government Members to vote for the motion, make the documents public and prove that the Prime Minister has nothing to hide.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the new team of Ministers to their positions today. I am not alone in being worried about the effect of this Government chaos on the Union, specifically on what they will do in terms of Union activity. The Union has been treated as a departmental tennis ball. It has gone to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, then to the Cabinet Office, and then back to the Department for Levelling Up, and now, we hear, it is potentially staying there. Does that really suggest priority for the Union? The former Prime Minister did not call the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales during the entire time that she was in office. That says a lot. Will the Minister please explain to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland why this Tory Government treat our Union as a departmental tennis ball, instead of, as Labour would do, defending and building on our strong Union, which is a priority for everyone across our country?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I take the hon. Lady’s point but, of course, as we have said, the Prime Minister telephoned the leaders of the Scottish and Welsh devolved Governments on his very first night in office. If that does not show how much the Union is treated as a priority, I am not really sure what else can be done. On departmental work, it is very important that the Cabinet Office deals with the constitutional elements of that and to use its expertise to make sure that intergovernmental work is as effective as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Fleur Anderson.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The latest Office for National Statistics figures show that half of adults are buying less food as a result of the cost of living crisis. Earlier this year, farmers slammed the Government for being “blasé” about food security following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. One farmer branded governance from Westminster as shambolic, slow to see problems, slower to react and inadequate when it does. It is the Government’s responsibility to plan and be prepared for sudden shocks, and it is essential for us to have a national resilience strategy, but we have been waiting 14 months for that crucial strategy. I am starting to think its existence is an urban myth. At this time of national crisis, can this month’s Minister explain to the public why the national resilience strategy is permanently at the bottom of the Department’s in-tray? Will that change?

[Oliver Dowden]

First, I would hope that the hon. Lady heard from my previous answer my personal commitment as Chancellor of the Duchy to ensure this is at the top of the Government’s in-tray. Of course one of the consequences of the invasion of Ukraine is greater food insecurity. That is why the Cabinet Office is taking action to co-ordinate to ensure we address that. However, underlying all this is an inflationary problem. At the absolute heart of the Prime Minister’s commitment as an incoming Prime Minister is making sure that we get a grip of inflation and start to see it fall. If we can start to see it fall, all those pressures will be relieved.

[Fleur Anderson]

My concern, and that of others, is that this summer of chaos has left a black hole in emergency preparedness, beyond just food strategy—in other emergency resilience planning. This morning the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy concluded in its report that

“no Minister is taking responsibility for”

ensuring the resilience of vital power, transport and communications networks. We have long called for a dedicated Minister of resilience as part of Labour’s three-point plan for a more resilient Britain, learning the lessons from covid. So will the Government now follow our lead and adopt the recommendations of the Joint Committee report, but start with a dedicated Minister responsible for resilience?

Early General Election

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship in this momentous debate, Mr Mundell. I thank the Chair of the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), for fast-tracking this debate and putting the case for a general election so well. She speaks for so many people across this country.

I also offer a huge thank you and congratulations to the more than 633,000 members of the public who have supported the e-petition that secured today’s debate. Over 500,000 people have signed it in the past two weeks alone, and at the moment, over 1,000 are signing it every hour. I believe that today’s debate is being watched by an unusual number of people for a Westminster Hall debate. A staggering number of people have signed the petition since 28 July, and I have had confirmation that it is the first e-petition calling for a general election to be debated in this House. I was proud to see that over 1,100 of my constituents in Putney have signed it; I think all of us here today, and many other Members, can say that an unusual number of their constituents have signed this petition. It really is very significant.

I congratulate Darrin Charlesworth on launching the petition back in July. Back then, he said that

“The chaos engulfing the UK government is unprecedented. Over 40 ministers resigned leaving departments without leadership during cost of living, energy and climate crises. War rages in Ukraine; the Northern Ireland Protocol has further damaged our relationship with Europe; recession looms; the UK itself may cease to exist as Scotland seeks independence. This is the greatest set of challenges we have seen in our lifetimes. Let the people decide who leads us through this turmoil.”

That is how the petitioner, and the thousands of people who signed the petition, felt back in July. But look at what has happened since. We have had a Prime Minister voted in by the very few. She has launched a new economic strategy with no mandate, prioritising VAT-free shopping for tourists, of all things, and tax cuts for the super-rich. She has tanked the pound, causing the Bank of England to have to step in. She jeopardised pensions and sent mortgage costs soaring, before U-turning on the 45p rate of tax and then on corporation tax. She ditched her Chancellor after 38 days. This morning she ditched the two-year energy price cap, the income tax cut, the freeze on alcohol duties, VAT-free shopping for tourists—fair enough—and the dividend and freelance reforms. Who knows what else is changing as we speak, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving a statement in the main Chamber. I am sure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, many more Members would be present if that were not happening right now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North reiterated that there is no mandate and that people have lost patience with the Government. No one wants to sign the petition and ask for a general election unless it is absolutely essential, and we seem to have no other option. She also said that the polls show that the number of people who want a general election is even higher than the number of people who have signed the petition. The damage being done by not raising benefits, and the damage being done to child poverty levels, surely should be uppermost in our minds.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) outlined the incompetence that we have seen in the last few months and put it into the context of 12 years of Tory rule, local government underfunding and the failure to stimulate growth, which is the biggest threat to families’ financial security.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) said that she is stopped in the street by people who are worried and afraid. She is not alone; I, too, am often stopped in the street. Just this morning, I went to visit a food bank in my constituency, and so many people told me about their fear. That is why they are talking about calling a general election. We are in unprecedented times.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) gave a whole list of reasons why we need a general election, and she started by calling out the failed philosophy of trickle-down economics, which has been laid bare over the last few weeks. The loss of trust of businesses and unions alike, and the issues of benefits, mortgages, food banks and energy provision—the list goes on. There are many reasons why people have signed the petition and are calling for a general election.

I often say that debates in the House are timely, but this is certainly a timely debate—more than most. The petition is highly significant, and I hope that the Minister’s response will reflect that significance, rather than brushing the issue aside and saying that it would be too disruptive to have a general election at this time. People who have signed the petition feel that the disruptive thing to do is to stick with what we have now. We in this House are entrusted with making decisions on behalf of everyone in the country only on the basis of a democratic mandate from those who have elected us to be here.

A pact has arisen with the British people from hundreds of years of history: parties share in their manifestos what they will do, and they are elected on the basis of their manifestos. From the party with the biggest number of elected Members, the Prime Minister is chosen to deliver the manifesto mandate. We are very close to losing the trust of the nation, because that mandate is being broken with every statement and every press conference. It is not just a matter of communication, and it is not just because the new leader was chosen without a clear majority of even her own MPs supporting her. This is a loss of faith with the policies of the Conservative Government, because they are not the ones that were in the manifesto. There is a loss of faith that these policies are in the best interest of people across the country, rather than in the best interest of only the Conservative party.

The markets lost faith in Conservative policies—the pound tanked and mortgage prices soared—but the petition shows that the people have lost faith as well. No one voted for the biggest raft of tax cuts since 1972. No one voted for £45 billion of tax cuts with no fiscal strategy. No one voted for bankers’ bonuses. No one voted for trickle-down economics, with no evidence that it will actually trickle down. No one voted for U-turns on banning no-fault evictions. No one voted for the economy to be plunged into chaos. No one voted to ditch the green homes grant after just a few weeks. No one voting for lifting the moratorium on fracking. No one voted to scrap crucial environmental protection laws, to attack nature or even to turn on the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust, the Wildlife Trusts and the Ramblers.

No one voted to reduce workers’ rights. No one voted to pull out of the European convention on human rights. No one voted for Brexit chaos to continue. No one voted to jeopardise the trade deal with India or to shelve a trade deal with the US. No one voted to trash our institutions or to bury reports from the Office for Budget Responsibility. No one voted for soaring mortgages and the follow-on that will inevitably result in rent costs increasing at the same time as a cost of living crisis.

No one voted to damage further our international reputation, and no one voted to damage our Union. The fact that the Prime Minister has not even called the First Ministers of Scotland or Wales yet is a scandal. Our Union is precious. It is shocking that the Prime Minister has not even telephoned the two First Ministers. Perhaps the Minister will confirm when those phone calls will take place.

What next? A general election may be a short-term disruption, but the damage to our economy, people’s lives and the Union could be far longer reaching. This Prime Minister is no different from her predecessor, and so it is no wonder that people’s patience has run out. She seems to now be interested only in saving her skin at all costs. The public will not forgive and they will not forget. This is a Tory crisis, made in Downing Street but paid for by working people up and down my constituency and those of every Member present and all other Members.

It is important to put this petition in the context of the last three years. These problems did not start in July, when the petition started, or in September. There have been three years of scandal, sleaze and sloppy governance. Will the Minister confirm when the new ethics adviser will be appointed? We need to win back the trust of the British people. How can we do that if there is no ethics adviser even in place?

Since the last election—not even three years ago—we have had two Prime Ministers, five Chancellors, a slew of scandals, endless errors, and a pile of broken promises. The Conservatives have lost the right to govern. As the petition says loud and clear, the public have lost patience. A change of Chancellor is not enough. The Tories have tried a change in Prime Minister, and it is worse than ever. We do not need, as has been rumoured, a trumped up coronation of a new Tory leader either. We need a change in Government. As the chairman of Tesco said yesterday, there is just one team on the pitch now: Labour has a plan for growth, while the Conservatives do not.

Labour’s approach will be based on working together, with businesses, workers and public bodies all pulling together in a national endeavour to rebuild Britain and seize the opportunities of the future. Labour’s plan to buy, make and sell more in Britain is all about using all the tools at the Government’s disposal to support businesses in this country, bringing jobs back to Britain, sorting out the Government’s supply chain chaos, and last but not least, cleaning up the Tories’ Brexit mess, taking action on the climate and nature emergencies, and getting our economy firing on all cylinders.

If there is a general election and the people choose Labour’s plan for growth over the Conservative anti-growth coalition, we will invest in people, skills and our public services. We will rebalance the books based on fairness and tackling the climate emergency, not on the backs of working people and not by rewarding bankers. No wonder the people who signed this petition want that vision of stability over the current chaos, even if that means calling for a general election. For the good of the nation, we need a general election. Labour is election ready. We are ready for Government. Only Labour offers the leadership and ideas that Britain needs to secure the economy and get us out of this Tory-created mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

The hon. Member makes a good point. Of course, all political parties will at times have disagreements. One of the things that makes me such a proud Conservative is the broad church of our operation, and I believe that it is that broad church that allows many of my colleagues with differing views to come together with shared values. That is why Conservatives, who have been elected and given a mandate, can change leadership but still have a Conservative Government delivering Conservative policies.

Earlier this year, delivering on a Conservative manifesto promise, Parliament passed legislation repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It was a flawed piece of legislation, which ran counter to the core constitutional principles of our country, and I believe that it had a damaging effect on the functioning of parliamentary democracy. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 returned us to tried and tested constitutional arrangements for dissolving Parliament and calling elections. It received broad agreement across the House, and I do not believe that a single Labour MP voted against its Second or Third Reading. By repealing the 2011 Act and it opaque provisions, it reaffirmed the convention that the Government hold office by virtue of their ability to command confidence in the House of Commons.

Members are in a privileged position to put views to the Prime Minister and senior colleagues, and I encourage them to do so. We have debates, such as this one, and other appropriate forums. The Government are entitled to assume that they have the confidence of the House unless and until it is shown to be otherwise. That can be demonstrated unambiguously only by means of a formal confidence vote. Thus, the Government, under the new Prime Minister, continue to command the confidence of the Commons.

The Prime Minister can call a general election at any time of her choosing by requesting the Dissolution of Parliament from the sovereign, which, if accepted, leads to a general election. As a result, the decision of when the next election will take place rests with the Prime Minister.

On the appointment of the Chancellor, who is currently giving his statement on the Floor of the House, the Prime Minister asked my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) to assume the role. As the Prime Minister has said, he is one of the most experienced and widely respected Government Ministers and parliamentarians. The Prime Minster has asked the Chancellor to deliver the medium-term fiscal plan, and he is giving a statement to the House as I speak. That will explain the support that the Government are giving.

The hon. Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) mentioned the cost of living. That is very important to us; we want to get this right. We want to bring in the energy price guarantee. We have already given £400 to every household, with £1,200 going to the most vulnerable, and £150 back on council tax, along with other support. We want to help the most vulnerable in society and we want the right targeted packages. Of course, to do that, we need to have sustainable public finances and to show fiscal responsibility. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will talk about that today. We want to bring our debts down; we want to ensure that inflation is low; we want to ensure that interests rates are sensible. We do not set interest rates—the Bank of England does—but we want people to be able to afford their mortgages.

After I had bought my first house, the financial crisis happened—that was a difficult period for homeowners. We want to help people to get through this; we are a nation of homeowners. We want to protect people, including the most vulnerable, and, of course, we want people to be able to pay their energy bills and for their food shopping.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Minister for the history lesson. I think the people who signed the petition thought that we needed a new Government not because of the change of leader, but because of the policies of the new leader—that is why so many people are signing it. Mortgages are going up by an average of £500 across the country, but that figure will be a lot higher in my constituency. Those homeowners are the ones signing the petition. They are saying, “We’ve had enough of these policies. There hasn’t been any fiscal restraint; it has been really damaging. We need a change of policies.”

The current Prime Minister lost her credibility because her Budget has been thrown out—a new one is coming—so she may need to be replaced. How many changes of Conservative party leader does the Minister think there needs to be before a general election is called?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

People want stability and certainty, and that is also what the markets wanted, which is why we have acted decisively. The Prime Minister has been clear and has acted pragmatically. She has appreciated when things have not worked and has changed tack as a result. That is a sign of a strong Government, and I fully support the Prime Minister in those efforts.

The hon. Member for Midlothian said that he also wanted another independence referendum for Scotland. I would argue that Scotland has already had a referendum and that people made a choice. They want the same stability; they want to know what the future holds for them. They made their choice and they see it as being part of that stability. They worry about their interest rates and their houses, and about inflation. We want to govern for the whole Union.

Seven Principles of Public Life

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) on securing it.

What an important debate this is to have on the first day of a new premiership. The timing could not be more appropriate. I share the disappointment of other Members that there are no Conservative Members here, except the Minister—I am glad to see her in her place—for this very fundamental debate. Shockwaves have just gone through our political system. The premiership has changed because of an erosion of standards, yet the Chamber is not absolutely packed. Conservative Members should be looking at themselves and the system, and making changes.

I hope the new Prime Minister and her team are watching and that this debate serves as a reminder that this House cares deeply about ethics and standards. Members have made some really fantastic speeches. I encourage anyone reading this in Hansard to go back and read the earlier speeches.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree spoke about the erosion of trust in politicians caused by the scandals and sleaziness under the previous Prime Minister, and about the need for a new system to restore integrity. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) said that the new Prime Minister must make restoring trust and confidence in politicians a priority of her premiership—I agree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) spoke about the link between standards in public life and the loss of faith in the political system, and about the seriousness of this debate and the need for respect for each other in this House. We must set an example here by upholding the highest standards, which will then be followed throughout the rest of the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) highlighted Ministers’ persistent failure to register interests on time and the opaqueness of the system, which goes against the principle of openness. Who is paying for freebies? Who is meeting Ministers? He spoke about the need for the Committee on Standards’ new code of conduct to be taken up, and I hope it will be next week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) spoke about the importance of standards. I met the young people who came from Plymouth yesterday, and I was really struck by their integrity, openness, transparency and leadership, but I was disappointed to hear of their loss of faith in politicians, which is reflected across the country.

I have no idea how MPs are able to have a second job. Today is the 1,000th day since I was elected, and it has been really tough. Every day, I have been delighted to be a Member representing my constituency and standing up in public life, but I do not know how I would fit anything else in. On the issue of Members’ safety, people feel this is not a safe place to work and that causes them to count themselves out of standing to come to this place, and we lose an immense wealth of talent because of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) highlighted the cronyism, the suspension of Parliament and a list of things that have happened to bring us to this debate. The failure to uphold standards and their undermining have meant that the system has lost public trust. This is a crisis.

When it comes to ethics and standards, and to trust, the Government need to be placed in special measures, and I hope to hear from the Minister about what special measures will be taken to bring us out of this system. Instead of the seven Nolan principles, we have seen scandals, bullying, back-covering and cronyism. We have seen poor behaviour by MPs acting with impunity. We have seen what is said in the House, and what happens in Downing Street, bringing us to this place. It breaks my heart when I stand on doorsteps every weekend and people say, “You’re all the same.” The undermining of the seven principles by some Members undermines us all and all the work done by decent MPs, and it allows improper influence to undermine our very democracy.

Because of all that has happened, it is no wonder that the former ethics adviser felt overworked. Government Members—not in Westminster Hall today, but elsewhere— will be quick to assert that the Prime Minister will turn over a new leaf and that we have a new moment and a break from the past, so that we can start afresh. Deep down, however, they know this is a fiction, because the Prime Minister propped up her disgraced predecessor as he misled the British public and corrupted Downing Street. The actions of the former Prime Minister cast a long shadow and, whether she likes it or not, the new Prime Minister is darkened by it. That is why action on standards, and explaining that action to make it transparent what changes are being made, is so important.

It is already clear that the Johnsonian tradition of believing that the rules do not apply to those at the top will be kept alive and well under the incoming Administration unless there are changes. Instead of pledging to restore standards in public life after years of Tory sleaze and scandal, the Prime Minister is threatening to trample all over them. During the leadership campaign, she was asked multiple times to commit to replacing the ethics adviser. At Prime Minister’s questions earlier, her answer to one of the questions was a simple yes. That is what was needed for the question of whether she will appoint an ethics adviser. Her response should have been yes, but she did not commit to appointing an ethics adviser, which is extremely worrying. The Prime Minister has already appointed a whole new senior leadership team and political advisers, but an independent adviser on ministerial interests was conspicuously absent from the list. Like her predecessor, she seems to think she does not need one. To use her own words, that is a disgrace. If only the Prime Minister cared as much about standards in public life as she so evidently does about pork markets and cheese.

The incoming Prime Minister would do well to remember that it is because of her predecessor’s disregard for the seven principles that she now finds herself with moving vans outside No. 10. She should know, and I am sure she does know, that getting rid of the ethics adviser is a blank cheque for corruption. Corruption is a big word, but it does not arrive in any country or place of work with a big bang, saying, “Hello, I’m corruption.” It creeps in unannounced, it corrodes and infects politics. It is about small decisions, larger ones and things that are done behind closed doors that are not known about. It is often small and unseen. It is insidious, and it infects slowly. That is why a line must be drawn and the system must be changed, because it is not working.

Senior civil servants are also worried, which matters for the whole delivery of Government. When the last ethics adviser resigned, Dave Penman, the general secretary of the FDA—the senior civil servants union—said that

“confidence in the process has been severely damaged. If the prime minister does not intend to replace Lord Geidt, then he must immediately put in place measures to ensure a civil servant can, with confidence, raise a complaint about ministerial misconduct.”

We cannot just leave a vacuum at the top. As pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, the position of ethics adviser is not an optional extra. The ethics adviser performs a key administrative function that enables openness, honesty and transparency. With the post vacant, there is no one to whom new Members can give their full list of interests that may be thought to give rise to a conflict with a Minister’s public duties. With whom will they register that? There is no one to investigate possible breaches of the ministerial code. There is no one to advise the Prime Minister on the code, which is a substantial and highly important document for upholding the seven principles, and there is no one to take up existing investigations.

Labour believes in the seven principles. When we are in Government, we will clean up politics by establishing an independent ethics and integrity commission to ensure the transparency and accountability that have been woefully lacking under the Conservatives. We would make appointments at speed, but we would go further. We have called for an expansion of the scope of the statutory register of lobbyists and a ban on MPs taking up lobbying jobs for five years after leaving office.

Not only does Labour believe in the Nolan principles, the public does, too. The former Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), said that voters don’t “give a fig” about the ethics adviser. I hope that no new Ministers share that view because voters do give a fig. This is unacceptable. I would counsel the new Prime Minister and her Cabinet not to insult the British electorate by being complacent about standards. They do give a fig about honesty and integrity.

I will end by asking the Minister several important questions, which I have asked several times in different places but have never had a straight answer for. First, can she confirm whether ongoing investigations launched by the previous ethics adviser will now be completed? Can she confirm whether there will be an interim position or a role holder for the ethics adviser? Labour’s motion to the House in June called for this replacement to be put in place within two months. It has been well over two months now, but no interim position or ethics adviser has been put in place. Has the Minister spoken with the new Prime Minister about what she plans to do with the role? I am sure the Prime Minister has been very busy, but this is a high priority. Is she aware of the key accountability functions not being performed because there is no adviser, and how outdated is the record of ministerial interests now? Who is holding Ministers to account in the interim?

With no ethics adviser and no obvious backstop in place, Ministers are free to do as they please without consequence. It is a blank cheque for bad behaviour. It is a bad start for the new Administration. It may be an attractive position for the Government, who have always found the rules to be incredibly inconvenient, but it is not attractive or acceptable to the British public. The seven principles of public life have been the cornerstone of our democracy for 25 years. There was a time when they were treated as sacrosanct by all Prime Ministers, Ministers and Governments—whether Labour or Conservative—because those seven principles are British principles.

The public do not ask for much from us—well, not all the time. They do not ask for perfection in their politicians, but they rightly expect that we act in the public’s interests at all times and never in our personal interests. It is that simple. Labour understands this. This is a time for a reset on public standards. I hope to hear from the Minister about—that word—delivery. The Government must deliver not only an effective system that stops power corrupting, but one that inspires and sets the best example to the country of action in public life.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind her to leave a few minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) to wind up.

Contaminated Blood Scandal: Interim Payments for Victims

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

The whole matter is still being considered. There are 19 recommendations, and my officials are working hard across Whitehall on the matter. It is unfair and inaccurate to characterise this as having made no progress over the years. Of course it made no progress, or hardly any progress, for many, many years after the infected blood scandal began. Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead began the inquiry, considerable progress has been made and is being made.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question.

I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for securing this urgent question and for her years of campaigning on behalf of the victims of this horrendous scandal. These excuses just do not wash. Where there is a political will, as we saw at the beginning of covid, the Government can act very fast, but we have seen the opposite of haste on this issue.

For too long, the contaminated blood community has been failed by Government and ignored by those who let their demands fall on deaf ears. Tragically, as a result of this delay, many members of the infected blood community will not live to see the outcome of this inquiry. The longer it goes on, the fewer victims will be around to see justice done. Is that what the Treasury wants to happen?

Justice delayed is justice denied, but this Government continue to hide behind more and more reviews. The Paymaster General, as he just said, received Sir Robert Francis’s report on the compensation framework study four months ago and pledged to respond in due course, but what work is currently under way to respond to the report’s 19 recommendations? How many meetings have been held? What is concretely being done?

With one person dying every four days as a result of infected blood, how does the Paymaster General justify his Department’s slow response? The deadline for the response will now fall after the House enters its summer recess, but what is to stop him publishing his response early so that Parliament has the chance to scrutinise and debate the outcome? Does he agree with Sir Robert that there is a moral case for compensating victims and for getting on with it earlier? This inquiry also seeks to investigate why warnings about the safety of blood products may have been ignored, and why plans to make the UK self-sufficient in blood products were scrapped. What is the Paymaster General’s assessment of these issues?

I pay tribute to the courage, resilience and determination of the survivors of the contaminated blood scandal, and their families, who have stayed in this fight for too long. It is time for answers.

[Michael Ellis]

My officials are working hard on this matter with the Department of Health and Social Care and across Whitehall. There are 19 recommendations, and we had Sir Robert Francis’s very detailed and forensic evidence only last week. The matter is being given the fullest, speediest and most expeditious consideration, and I ask the hon. Lady to bear in mind that officials across Whitehall feel just as passionately as I do, and as the House does, about getting this right and doing the right thing for all those infected and affected.