PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Covid-19 Inquiry - 19 July 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the covid-19 inquiry. Yesterday, Baroness Hallett published her report from the first module of the UK covid-19 inquiry, which examines the resilience and preparedness of the United Kingdom between 2009 and early 2020.

My thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with the families of those who lost loved ones during the pandemic. Their grief and the nature of their loss is harrowing, with so many loved ones lost before their time; so many heartbreaking last goodbyes said over a phone or iPad; and in some cases there was not even the chance to say goodbye at all. So many friends and family members were denied even the chance to go to a funeral, and many others found their lives changed by covid forever. We can only begin to imagine the anguish and anger that people feel, because this report confirms what many have always believed: that the country was not as prepared as it should have been, and that more could and should have been done.

Baroness Hallett is unequivocal:

“The UK was ill prepared for dealing with a catastrophic emergency, let alone the coronavirus…pandemic”.

She finds that “processes, planning and policy” across all four nations failed our citizens. There were fundamental failures of state, with poorly performing public services, as well as health and social inequalities contributing to our vulnerability.

The inquiry finds that

“the UK prepared for the wrong pandemic”,

with a focus on influenza to the effective exclusion of other potential pathogens. There was a lack of leadership, a lack of appropriate challenge and oversight from Ministers and officials, which allowed major gaps to open up in the UK’s resilience in the period leading up to the pandemic.

Baroness Hallett finds

“fatal strategic flaws underpinning the assessment of the risks”

and

“a failure to learn sufficiently from past civil emergency exercises and outbreaks of disease.”

Ministers and officials took false comfort from a positive analysis of the UK’s preparedness. Not enough thought was given to how we might seek to prevent the worst effects of a pandemic, such as with a system of test and trace, rather than accepting the consequence of spread as inevitable.

In this emergency, the cracks in our society were exposed. The inequalities were glaring, and that weakened the response. That is why the report’s findings on the most vulnerable are so important: what it says about the elderly, ethnic minorities and those already subject to existing health inequalities, particularly in the early months of the pandemic; those with higher risk of serious illness who were asked to shield for extended periods; those living in overcrowded houses, working in the gig economy or on low incomes; those who suffered as a result of the appalling increase in domestic abuse during the lockdowns; and, of course, disruption to education and the inequalities of vastly different access to online learning and IT equipment. Resilience has to be for all of us, not just some of us.

The underlying picture that this report sets out is stark. Before the pandemic began, our public services were already stretched to their limit, during what should have been normal times. This was especially true of the NHS, overstretched even before the pandemic hit, and key workers in other services, overburdened in normal times and then asked to go above and beyond. A nation can only be as resilient as the foundational strength of its infrastructure and public services.

As I stand here today with 8 million people on NHS waiting lists, prisons overflowing, councils pushed to the brink and public services in a worse position than they were even in 2020, we must ensure that we are prepared. Baroness Hallett says that it is not a question of if another pandemic will strike, but when. Resilience is not just about another pandemic, but about the full range of risk that we face. We are reminded of that this morning as reports come in about a global IT outage affecting airlines, GP surgeries, banks, media and other organisations. It is not easy to know what the future holds. We cannot plan fully for every possible risk, but we must do what we can to learn the lessons of this period.

The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe. That is a top priority of this Government. With a long-term approach to strengthening our national resilience, I shall lead a review of our national resilience against the range of risks that the UK faces. I shall chair a dedicated Cabinet Committee on resilience to oversee that work. Of course, it is not just about central Government, so we will work with the devolved Governments, regional mayors and local leaders as we consider the report’s recommendations. When we have an emergency, we should do everything we can to work together locally and nationally. The Prime Minister has already started to reset relationships with critical partners, because resilience is too important for division to get in the way. Instead, it has to be about co-operative strength.

Some improvements to our operational effectiveness have already been made. The previous Administration did make efforts to improve preparedness. These include changes in the way that the Government access, analyse and share data, including with the public. They also changed the risk assessment processes and the way in which the centre of Government works to prepare for and respond to crises. As an incoming Government, in office for just two weeks, we will look at those efforts in the coming months as we develop our own approach. Where things are good, they should be kept; where they are not good enough, they should be changed.

The inquiry’s report recommends improvements in the way whole-system risks are assessed and managed across the UK Government and the devolved Governments, and improvements to the leadership and oversight provided by Ministers. The Government will carefully consider all the findings and recommendations, including any from the Grenfell inquiry that also have a bearing on resilience planning. We will respond in full within six months.

We will also play our full part in international efforts to improve global health and pandemic preparedness, from disease surveillance and vaccine development to strengthening health systems in the global south and building even greater international co-operation. The United Kingdom has a huge amount to offer and it is in our national interest to do so, because, as we have seen so powerfully, pandemics do not respect international borders, so global health security is an essential element of national security.

I wish to thank Baroness Hallett and her team for all their work so far and for putting the voices of the bereaved at the heart of the inquiry. Amid the tragedy of the pandemic, the British people came together in the most extraordinary ways—from the incredible service and sacrifice of our frontline workers, not least in the NHS, to the generosity of volunteers across our communities supporting one another with acts of kindness. It was a story of service that showed the very best of our country. This Government of service are determined to learn the lessons from this inquiry and to prepare as best we can for the future. That is the duty that we have to the people we serve, and indeed to the memory of those we lost. It is in that spirit that I commend this statement to the House.

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster not only for early sight of his statement, for which I am grateful, but for his tone in how he addressed what is an extremely sobering report—module 1 of nine. I suspect that we will look at many more such sobering reports in the coming months.

I put on the record our gratitude to Lady Hallett and her team for the work that they have done and to all the witnesses who gave evidence, particularly those who had experienced loss and trauma. That evidence was vital, but giving it will not have been in any way easy, given what they had been through. I pay tribute to them. This module, the first of nine, is not only a hugely important piece of work, but the least this country owes to those who lost loved ones in the course of the pandemic.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rightly talked about how this country came together in the face of an unprecedented event, about which we learned more every day as the country had to adapt to changing knowledge. I join him in paying tribute to emergency workers and all across the country who worked in whatever way to come together and help the country get through, but particularly to those who worked in the NHS and care services and those who lost someone. It was an incredibly traumatic time for the entire country.

What has been set out by the right hon. Gentleman today and by Lady Hallett yesterday is deeply sobering. It lays bare failures of the state in respect of planning, challenge, resourcing and leadership. Irrespective of Government or party in power, it is incumbent upon us all to consider it in the spirit in which Lady Hallett has put forward her recommendations.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the work already done since the pandemic to improve resilience in this country and ensure that we are better prepared for the next one. We started that work in government, having announced the largest overhaul of our resilience structures in decades. We created the resilience directorate within the Cabinet Office, breaking it out from day-to-day crisis management so that it could focus on resilience, horizon scanning and better preparedness. We set up the resilience academy to increase and improve the training of Ministers, MPs, civil servants and all those in civil society who respond to crises. We also announced a new national exercising programme to test our systems.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster highlighted that the focus of previous pandemic preparedness planning was around influenza. It was seen in the context of Operation Cygnus, which was often pointed to as the blueprint of how to prepare for these things. The right hon. Gentleman was right that it focused on influenza, for which we have therapeutics; in the case of the covid pandemic, we did not. As a country and a civil society, we need to look completely across the piece at how we can best prepare for whatever eventuality may occur.

In setting out his next steps, the right hon. Gentleman adopted exactly the right approach; I am grateful to him for that and for his candour. There will be many more lessons still to learn. It is incredibly important for our country, this Government and any future Government that we learn the lessons to ensure that we are ready for future pandemics, however painful those lessons are. I am also grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment to respond swiftly.

I have a few questions for the right hon. Gentleman. What plans does he have to consult the devolved Administrations and local government structures on the detailed changes proposed to how they would operate in the context of a future emergency? What steps will he and the Government be taking to ensure that our emergency planning structures are more cohesively joined up if our country is to face another pandemic?

More importantly, I want to conclude by saying that we stand ready to work constructively and openly with the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in the national interest to ensure that, as a country, we learn the lessons from this module and from Lady Hallett’s future recommendations to build better resilience in our country and ensure that, irrespective of who is in government, the country is better prepared in future. That is the least that all of us in the House owe the country and those who lost loved ones or suffered in so many different ways—those whose mental health suffered, the children who suffered from not being able to go to school, those who suffered from domestic abuse, and those up and down the country who in many ways still suffer from what happened back then.

As I have said, I approach this issue in a spirit of co-operation with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I look forward to working with him in the national interest and to building resilience for the future.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response and for the tone in which he spoke. He set out what the previous Government have done, and in my statement I acknowledged that progress has been made, but I think it is also right that a new Government take the opportunity to have a fresh look at this, with fresh eyes and in the right spirit.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a couple of questions on consultation with the devolved Administrations. Yes, that is essential, as is consultation within England with local authorities and elected mayors. It is important that different parts of the country work together when there is a national emergency. There were also questions about how this operates within Government and the balance of responsibility between the centre and individual Government Departments. Baroness Hallett is quite clear that in a truly national emergency the centre has to step up and responsibility cannot be left to individual Departments.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to conclude with the spirit of co-operation that we need on this issue. This work is in the national interest and in the public’s interest. It is the first duty of any Government of any political stripe to do what they can to protect the public. The challenge is that the risks we face are more complex and more unpredictable than they have been in the past. As I said in my statement, we cannot fully plan for every risk, but we have to try to have a system in place that gives us the best possible chance of planning for the risks we can see in front of us.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Like everyone, my thoughts are with the many victims who tragically lost their lives. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard-working staff at St Thomas’ hospital in my constituency who cared for so many people in their last dying days, and who cared for the former Prime Minister when he caught covid-19. You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that the national covid memorial wall is in my constituency—a stark reminder of the many lives that were lost, each heart painstakingly painted by a family member and dedicated to their lost one. It is a reminder of the many lives that were lost. Will my right hon. Friend visit the covid memorial wall with me and meet the families, and look at how we can make that wall permanent? This is not just about resilience, but about remembering those victims who tragically lost their lives.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the staff at St Thomas’ and other NHS staff across the country, who did so much to care for people during that very difficult period. I have visited the memorial wall in her constituency, and she is right: it is an incredibly moving and human experience. I am very happy to take up her invitation to visit again.

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

I am covering for our spokesperson, who sadly cannot be here today.

I start by paying tribute to Baroness Hallett and all those who have painfully given evidence to this inquiry. It will not have been easy for them and our hearts go out to them. This will be a painful day. The inquiry’s damning findings confirm in clear terms what we unfortunately already knew, and this must be a moment for change. The country was badly let down during the pandemic and this new Government must ensure that lessons are learned swiftly. The Liberal Democrats called for this inquiry back in 2020 and we will continue to demand that the full facts be known about every aspect of this catastrophic failure.

One area of particular focus was the lack of leadership provided by the then Conservative Government. The inquiry found that proper scrutiny and accountability was often missed by Ministers. That is why Back Benchers across this House set up the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, which I was privileged to chair. Over 18 months we heard from frontline workers, public health professionals and bereaved families, and there was a deep frustration that they could see what was going wrong, but it was falling on deaf ears in Whitehall.

This is a moment to change how politics works, and I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Government will work across the aisle. What will the Government do to ensure that the right voices are in the room for future such health emergencies, and do they agree that we need a commissioner for ageing and older people, as the Liberal Democrats have been advocating?

Care homes were another area of critical failure. Many of those victims died not directly from covid but because of the lack of care. Do the Government agree that patients and care home residents should be given a new legal right to maintain contact in all health and care settings?

The third area that has been under-reported is long covid. Many of us will remember standing in the cold in November banging on our drums for frontline workers, yet they have not received compensation for a disability that has put them out of their beloved profession. Will the Cabinet Office work with the Department for Work and Pensions to progress the compensation scheme that is in train and to gather the right evidence to ensure that we get it right?

Ahem.

Very finally, on the memorial, will the Minister implement the recommendations in the final report of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration?

Order. May I just say to the Front Benchers that we are all learning, but we should do so by setting the best example? You are meant to have two minutes, not three. Please can we help each other? Otherwise, I will have Members complaining that they did not get in.

I thank the hon. Member for her questions and the spirit in which she asked them. The truth is that it is easy for any of us to say, “Lessons must be learned,” and whenever anything goes wrong, people say that. The proof is in the practice. Will it be shown in practice? That is the ultimate test for us all.

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Member that, just as I said to the Opposition spokesperson, yes, we are happy to work across the aisle on this and to consider suggestions. My colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are considering the recommendations on the memorial.

The Minister spoke of resilience. He is aware that Northwick Park hospital in my constituency was the epicentre at the start of the pandemic, and the lack of resilience meant that nurses there had to wear bin bags to protect themselves. I noted that he spoke of Grenfell in his statement. That was fundamentally important, because this is not simply about resilience in health. In that regard, I ask him to look at the issue of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. The same RAAC that caused problems in our schools was used in many housing developments at the time. We need to be resilient to any potential disasters in that respect, too.

I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the work of the NHS staff in his constituency. RAAC in public buildings is part of the Government’s inheritance. Just because the problem has slipped down the news agenda somewhat, that does not mean that it has gone away. In time, we will have to address it to ensure that such buildings—whether housing accommodation or public buildings—are safe for people to live in, work in and be treated in.

I congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on his new role and welcome the tone of his statement. The report is a stark reminder—if any were needed—that even the most eminent and public-spirited scientists can occasionally be wrong when groupthink affects assumptions. What can the Government do to ensure that Ministers and parliamentarians have access to the widest possible range of advice—including, where appropriate, dissenting voices—across a whole range of issues?

The hon. Member is right that groupthink is identified in the report, so it is important for the Government to have access to the widest range of advice, but no part of that, for me or the Government, will be about engaging in anti-science rhetoric or anything of that nature. A diversity of views, yes; a denial of the facts, no.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Again, I echo her comments on the memorial wall. Following the election, we have a lot of new Members in the House; if any of them find themselves with a spare hour, they could do a lot worse than go to the memorial wall, contemplate, and look at the outpouring of grief that is reflected on that wall.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about long covid, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. When we think about the pandemic, of course we think about those who were lost and their families, but there are also people several years on from the pandemic who are still living with those consequences.

I thank the Minister for his statement. As the former Minister of Health in Northern Ireland who served during the pandemic, my thoughts and condolences are with those who were lost and those who were bereaved, and I pay a tribute of thanks to those who worked across health and social care during that trying time.

The Minister said that resilience has to be for all of us, not just for some. I ask him to ensure that all the devolved nations are equally involved. He talked about there being a consultation with the devolved nations and regions. Can I ask for it to be more than just a consultation, and for it actually to be a partnership?

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. He is quite right: this report covers all parts of the United Kingdom, and it makes a real effort to do so. The new Prime Minister also made an effort to do so in the days following the election, and one of his first priorities was to visit Northern Ireland. I agree with the hon. Member about co-operation—I think it is essential. Small differences sometimes act to the detriment of the whole effort.

I welcome my right hon. Friend and near neighbour to his place. Like so many families, my family was affected by the death of a loved one during the pandemic, and a small heart on the national memorial wall reflects my auntie for time immemorial. Does my right hon. Friend agree that procurement during a state of emergency such as the pandemic is important, and that any fraud that occurs must be pursued ruthlessly?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and ask that he accepts my condolences on the loss of his auntie during the pandemic. He is absolutely right to draw our attention to the procurement issues that have been highlighted—they are not specifically covered in this report, but they will be. As he will be aware, this Government will bring forward proposals for a covid fraud commissioner to recover as much as we can of the money that was lost to fraud or waste during that period.

I welcome the statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and was particularly pleased to hear him talk about the role of local government. Local government was instrumental in the response, and I imagine the inquiry will find that had it had a greater role, there would have been better resilience. However, as we know, local government financing is in crisis; my own local council is trying to save £100 million this year. What reassurance can he give us that local councils will be given the funding they need to have in place the resilience we need for the future?

The hon. Member is right to praise the role of local government. My experience in Wolverhampton was that the council stepped up and did a fantastic job for local citizens during the pandemic. The financial position of local government is difficult; the financial position on a number of things is difficult. I am afraid the truth is that I cannot stand here and promise to write big cheques for everything. We did not say that we would do that during the election, and we will have to operate with a difficult—very difficult—economic inheritance. Everything that we do has to be underpinned by economic stability and financial responsibility. Tough as that is, I am afraid that we have seen the consequences of doing otherwise all too clearly in recent years.

In her report, Baroness Hallett said:

“The UK government’s…pandemic strategy, from 2011, was outdated and lacked adaptability. It was virtually abandoned on its first encounter with the pandemic.”

Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that any future strategy will be robust and will be updated regularly?

One of the things that Baroness Hallett advises in her report is that every three years there is a proper exercise to test any plan and see whether it is fit for purpose. That is an important recommendation to take away and consider. It is difficult to plan for every possible risk. This is not an easy thing to do, but it is really important to try to have the best possible systems in place between the centre of Government, between the Departments and, as we have said, between local authorities and the devolved Administrations too.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which this has been approached, looking both at the things that went well and at the things we need to learn? Having external scrutiny from the covid inquiry provides that lens. As the Government look at the recommendations and begin to put plans in place, some of that will build on the work that was already being done and some, as he said, will be on things that need to improve. I suggest that external scrutiny of the Government’s response is equally important. Will he ask Lord Norton’s Statutory Inquiries Committee to monitor the Government’s response to the covid inquiry?

Scrutiny is always good, and I am sure that what we do will be scrutinised. It is really important to have a proper dialogue with the public about these things, because it does no harm for us as citizens, and as Government Ministers, to have a conversation about resilience, about what we do in an emergency, and about we think about that. We do not want to frighten anybody, but it is a good thing to do, and it is a proper role for Government to have a good dialogue with the public about this.

I visited the wall this week, and it was a stark reminder of my own experience during the pandemic. I am an operating department practitioner, and I worked in emergency maternity theatres during that time. From day one, there was next to no strategy. Staff were fighting over inadequate personal protective equipment. We tried to speak up, but we were not heard. We were given out-of-date masks, gowns that were ill-fitting and visors that just fell off our faces.

Even when colleagues sadly lost their lives to the disease, the chaos continued. I sat with new mothers, holding their hands because their partners were not allowed to be with them. We stood by the bedside of a colleague on life support as they lost their battle with covid. Even now, staff are traumatised all over again when people who have waited so long for treatment cannot be helped. Will this Government ensure that NHS staff can have an input in future pandemic planning, as it is we who know how best to protect our patients?

I am very, very grateful to my hon. Friend for reflecting her experience. There is nothing that I can add to the power of her words. She is absolutely right that in planning for future pandemics, we have to listen to the voice of the staff, who are the people the country will rely on if we face any kind of similar emergency in future.

Members on both sides of the House will recognise that children and young people really felt the impact of the pandemic and the lockdowns on their mental health, their learning and their social and emotional development. We all recognise that executive decisions have to be taken in an emergency to protect children and staff in schools, but I think the public were aghast that pubs and zoos opened before our schools and colleges. Will the right hon. Gentleman’s committee look at putting a proper process in place—potentially designating schools and colleges as national critical infrastructure—with this House taking a vote on any extended lockdowns of our schools and colleges if those ever need to be put in place, and with evidence taken from the Children’s Commissioner and our school and college leaders?

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the pandemic’s impact on education through lost learning and, as I said in my statement, the great inequality that children suffered as a result of differential access to online learning. Did they have a good wi-fi connection at home? Did they have the equipment? Was the school fully geared up to providing online learning? The answer for some children to some of those questions was yes, but the answer for a lot of children was no. It is really important in future planning that if we have to make a change, we ensure that it does not reinforce inequality but helps everyone.

I put on record my gratitude for the service of the staff at the Hospital of St Cross and of other healthcare workers and volunteers across my constituency of Rugby. Does my right hon. Friend agree that failures of state in the pandemic, and in other cases, have often been due to under-investment and an ideological suspicion of the state among some, including, regrettably, some members of the last Government? Does he agree that a party that puts service first and that believes in investing in our health service and wider Government will ensure that this country is far better ready for future crises?

My hon. Friend talks about failures of state, and that is the essential finding in Baroness Hallett’s report: there were failures of state. He also mentions ideology; I tried in my statement to make it clear that we would not take an ideological approach and that where the last Government had done good things in response to the pandemic, we would keep them. But I also think that a change of Government after such a long period in power is an opportunity for fresh eyes—not necessarily in a partisan way, but having a different set of people to look at what has been done, keeping what is good and changing things if need be. That is one of the advantages of a change of Government, regardless of political colour, after one has been in office for so many years.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I welcome his announcement of a review of national resilience. Does he agree that the many legacies of the pandemic are still very much with us, from the awful personal impacts of bereavement and long covid to the terrible public service impacts on everything from school readiness to social care systems and more? Does he agree that those impacts were worse than they need have been, as set out by Baroness Hallett yesterday? In that spirit, does he agree that this Government’s work of renewal must necessarily also be a work of repair?

My hon. Friend talked about the legacies and, yes, they are very much still here. In terms of vulnerabilities and exposure, Baroness Hallett also mentioned the different impacts on different ethnic minority communities. When I say that resilience must be for everyone, that is also what I am talking about: it has to be for everyone, young and old, and regardless of their ethnic background. Sometimes there were vulnerabilities—particularly in the early months of the pandemic—that exposed inequalities in that regard, and that should give us all pause for thought.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and welcome him to his place. May I also thank Baroness Hallett and her team and associate myself with the comments that everyone here has made to the victims, the bereaved families and frontline workers? As my right hon. Friend said, the voices of the bereaved are at the heart of this report, and that is right. Can he assure me that when the Government are reflecting on the recommendations, that same spirit will be applied so that those insights go into the Government’s response?

Baroness Hallett deserves credit for putting the voices of the bereaved up front. If anyone has looked at the actual report, they will find that before we even get into the recommendations, findings and so on, there are quotes from the bereaved that bring home exactly what these losses of loved ones meant to people, and the lasting impact of that. Here we are some four years on from the beginning of it.

I recognise the conclusion in Baroness Hallett’s clear report and thank her for it. In Cornwall, our peripherality made it so much harder. Our local authority’s public health test and trace was halted by the Government on 12 March when fewer than half a dozen cases were in existence in Cornwall. PPE came very slowly. Citizens were making masks and some councillors and officers drove up to Exeter to pick up some. Care homes and workers in particular were slow to get PPE. In many care homes in my constituency, there were tragic results. Will we ensure that local authority public health directors can be more involved with decision making and setting up local solutions such as test and trace?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of care homes, where it was such a difficult situation throughout the pandemic. We were trying to get the right PPE to the staff. It was a huge problem during the early weeks of the pandemic. I remember raising questions about that, and it just exposed what a scramble for safety there was, particularly in the early months. She is right to urge us to learn the lessons from that.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Mr Speaker, as you will have noticed, and as other people have referred to, the report states that there was a failure to engage appropriately with local government in preparing for the pandemic. Sadly, that failure continued throughout the pandemic. I had the dubious pleasure of being the cabinet member for health and social care in Hammersmith and Fulham council throughout the pandemic. We had to fight to close our care homes because the hospitals, under instruction from the Government, were discharging residents without testing and would not listen to us and would not stop. We had to fight to get vaccination in our local pharmacies, and we had to fight to establish a local test and trace system, which then reached 99% of people when the Government were only reaching 62%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that further stages of the inquiry, or what the Government now do, should identify and learn from the previous Government’s failure to engage appropriately with the local authorities not only before but during the pandemic?

The points that my hon. Friend makes about local government are well made. As I have said, my experience in my local authority area was that I thought the local council stepped up. Sometimes the issue of who is vulnerable and where they are is much easier for a local authority to know than central Government. The spirit of co-operation that I called for in my opening statement is in the public interest and the national interest, and it is what we have to do. If we co-operate, we will be stronger.

I thank my right hon. Friend for an important statement, and I welcome him to his new role. Like many of us in this room, during the pandemic I lost a good friend and Harlow lost an incredible councillor in Councillor Frances Mason, an incredible community champion who served her community until the very end. In my constituency, NHS staff at Princess Alexandra hospital were on the frontline during this terrible period. Their feedback to me was that the Government’s initial response to covid was too slow and failed to recognise the seriousness of the issue. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Let me offer my hon. Friend my condolences on the loss of his colleague Frances Mason. He is right to pay tribute to NHS staff. Baroness Hallett has set out a number of failings, whether speed, leadership or co-ordination. It is important that we try to learn lessons from this, and we intend to do that.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. May I associate myself with the comments made today about the bereaved and the integral role of our public sector workers throughout the pandemic? Local government workers across Paisley and Renfrewshire South were on the frontline during the pandemic. They established temporary mortuaries to bury our dead, and they looked after the children of key workers so that they could go to work. Could my right hon. Friend say a little more about how to ensure that local authorities will be treated as an integral partner in our resilience planning and the response? That is about not just their funding but the respect with which they are treated by Government. Could he assure us that, in that spirit of co-operation across the four nations, Barnett consequentials given to the Scottish Government will be passed on to their intended recipients?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the important role of local authorities, as other hon. Members have. I hope that I have made it clear in my statement and in my responses today that this must be an effort by the whole United Kingdom: central Government, devolved Governments and local authorities in every part of the country. We are stronger together.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and Baroness Hallett for her important report. On the doorsteps of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, the anger and grief are still palpable. Where was the accountability from Ministers? Where was the leadership? Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust was on high alert before the pandemic hit. Is it not the case that our NHS was desperately struggling years before, through mismanagement from the Conservative party, and that lives were unnecessarily lost because of it? Careful preparedness planning and management of our NHS and social care services must be a top priority for this Government.

My hon. Friend is right that the NHS was in a vulnerable position before the pandemic, which is why the long-term health of the NHS is so important. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has begun that process. I have to be honest with the House: better long-term strength for the NHS will not happen overnight but it should still be an important aim for us.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place on the Front Bench, and I thank him for his statement. He touched on victims of what has been labelled the shadow pandemic—the surge in domestic violence during lockdown. Does he agree that any lessons learned must include action to protect those for whom the instruction “stay at home” is the most dangerous they can receive?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He highlights a very important issue that I spoke about in my opening remarks. It is an important aim of this Government to reduce violence against women and girls. I can assure him that the Minister put in charge of that will champion the cause with a passion and determination that I think and really hope will lead to results. Homes should be a place of safety. Sadly, as he rightly points out, during the pandemic that was not the case for some.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. We all have stories from the pandemic about how we and our families were affected. That is as true for Members as it is for constituents right across the country. My family were on the other side of the England-Wales border, and my stepfather was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis during the pandemic. I was not able to visit him and provide the support to my mother that our family needed. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will create a joined-up national strategy? As he rightly notes, the pandemic did not pay attention to our national borders. Will he assure me that we will work very closely with scientists to ensure that there is a national strategy moving forward?

I thank my hon. Friend, who highlights the difficulties people had in not being able to visit relatives and so on. Being joined up across the UK is really important. As I said, there is no place in this kind of planning to let what are sometimes small differences get in the way. We have to work together in a co-operative way. We are stronger together.

Module 1 of the report finds that pandemic planning did not take pre-existing health inequalities into account. In my constituency, those inequalities are particularly wide, as we saw at Grenfell Tower. I welcome the Minister’s statement that the Grenfell inquiry recommendations will be incorporated into the Government’s response. Does he agree that in that response we must have a far better plan for protecting the most vulnerable in our society, who are often the most disproportionately affected?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his mention of the Grenfell inquiry. As I said, it is important to take its findings into account. It is also true that pre-existing inequalities left people more vulnerable. A national emergency like this exposes weak points and brings them into the a glaring public light, and they weaken the response of the whole country. The truth is that we have a stronger response as a country if we manage to reduce inequalities, be they on the basis of ethnic minority or of income.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. To build on the previous question, Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK has said that module 1 of the report does not go far enough in looking at inequality. Given the high incidence of diabetes and other long-term health conditions in the south Asian community in particular in my constituency, and the disproportionately high covid death rate among disabled, black and Asian people, what assessment has he made of the deep structural inequalities in the health of the nation, after years of Conservative inaction, that caused us to be less prepared for covid-19, and that ultimately led to unnecessary deaths?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She is quite right to point out that the prevalence of a particular health condition can be higher in one part of the community. As I have said a few times today, the inequalities exposed in the pandemic made the response weaker than it might have been. If we are to be stronger and better able to handle an emergency like this in the future, we have to address those inequalities. That is not just in the interests of those it will help directly, but in the interests of all of us, because when it comes to emergencies like this, we are all in it together.