Covid-19 Inquiry

13:59:00

I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to module 1 of the covid inquiry. In July last year, Baroness Hallett published her report from the first module of the inquiry. It concluded that the UK was not as prepared as it should have been for the pandemic and that more could and should have been done. In my statement to the House immediately following the publication of her report, I committed to responding in full within six months. Before I turn to the Government’s response, I want to place on record once again my thanks to Baroness Hallett and her team for the work they have done so far in the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the families and friends who lost loved ones during the pandemic, some of whom are with us in the Gallery. Earlier this week I visited the national covid memorial wall just across the river from here. I am grateful to the friends of the wall who have so lovingly cared for it and maintained it over the past few years. As I said in my statement in July, the Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe. That is why since we were elected, we have taken steps to strengthen the UK’s resilience. I announced a review of national resilience. Work on that review is proceeding, and I will update the House on its conclusion in the spring. The Prime Minister has established a single Cabinet Committee for resilience, which I chair, which meets to ensure clear and rigorous ministerial oversight. We have adopted the 2023 biological security strategy to protect the UK and our interests from significant biological risks. In April, the new UK Resilience Academy will be launched. It will train over 4,000 people in resilience and emergency roles every year and help them plan for and manage a range of crises, including pandemics. I should also acknowledge, as I did in my first statement back in July, that in some areas these improvements build on work carried out by the previous Administration. The improvements that we have made to our resilience have been put to the test over the last six months. Those include the Prime Minister chairing a number of emergency Cobra meetings to address the violent disorder that occurred over the summer and working across our four nations to anticipate and contain clade 1 mpox cases in the UK. Since July, we have also sent two emergency alerts to provide advice to the public in life-threatening situations. During Storm Darragh, because of a very rare red—danger to life—warning, an alert was sent to over three million people in affected regions. More recently, we issued a very localised warning over flooding danger. The Government will carry out a full national test of the emergency alert system later this year. That will ensure that the system is functioning correctly, should it need to be deployed in an emergency. The covid module 1 inquiry found that years of under-investment meant that pandemic planning was not a sufficient priority, that our health services were already suffering and beyond capacity, and that there were high levels of illness and health inequalities. All of that meant that the state was ill-prepared to manage a crisis on this scale. Therefore, apart from the specific recommendations, delivering on the Government’s missions—particularly in this context, building a national health service fit for the future—will contribute in important ways to the UK’s resilience. Pandemic planning and resilience are about not just specific resilience measures but ensuring the underlying fundamentals of our country are strong. I thank the devolved Governments for their co-operation in preparing our response today. We will continue to work together for the safety of the communities we serve. I turn to specifics. There are three new commitments that I wish to highlight. First, the inquiry recommended that the UK Government and devolved Governments should together hold a regular UK-wide pandemic response exercise. We agree and will be undertaking a full national pandemic response exercise later this year. It will be the first of its kind in nearly a decade. It will test the UK’s capabilities, plans, protocols and procedures in the event of another major pandemic. It will be led by senior Ministers, involve thousands of participants and run across all regions and nations of the UK. Alongside the Health Secretary, I have written to all Cabinet Ministers to ask for their commitment to full participation. The exercise will take place in the autumn over a number of days. The Government will communicate the findings and lessons of the exercise as recommended by the covid-19 inquiry. Secondly, the inquiry found that the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and continues to affect many people in those communities. A new national vulnerability map created by the Cabinet Office with the Office for National Statistics will geographically map population numbers of those who may be vulnerable in a crisis. It will do that by sharing data including age, disability, ethnicity, and whether someone is receiving care. The map will improve the Government’s understanding of the scale and location of disproportionately impacted populations ahead of and during crises and enable targeted local support when required. Thirdly, as the inquiry reminds us, the risks we face are changing more quickly than ever before, and we live in an increasingly volatile world. It therefore recommended a better approach to risk assessment across the board, which we accept. Today, I am publishing an updated national risk register: the public-facing version of the national security risk assessment, which provides businesses and the voluntary and community sectors with the latest information about the risks they face to support their planning, preparation and response. We will ensure that it continues to be updated regularly. A significant proportion of the risks will be subject to reassessment over the next few months, and we will publish a further updated risk register as needed once the process is complete. I want to mention two further recommendations where the Government accept the underlying objectives and propose to take them forward in specific ways. First, the inquiry recommended Cabinet Office leadership for whole-system civil emergencies in the UK. We agree with that, as for whole-system emergencies such as a pandemic, the centre of Government needs to play a lead role. But for lower-scale emergencies, we believe that the lead Department model still has value. It remains important for Departments with the day-to-day responsibility for an issue to lead the work to identify serious risks and ensure that the right planning, response and recovery arrangements are in place. Therefore, in some circumstances we will retain the lead Government Department model, because, in those cases, responsibility and oversight should sit with the body with the best understanding, relationships and mechanisms for delivery to identify and address risks. There will be an enhanced role for the Cabinet Office to improve preparedness and resilience for larger-scale catastrophic risks. Secondly, on the question of independent input into whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience, we agree with the need for independent strategic advice and challenge, including the use of so-called red teams. We are establishing eight expert advisory groups to combat group-think in our understanding of risks. Alongside that, through the crisis management excellence programme we will increase training in red teaming. We want to work with the local resilience forums that exist around the country who provide critical knowledge and expertise. The Government are also committed to introducing a duty of candour on public authorities as a catalyst for a changed culture in the public sector to improve transparency and accountability. We also welcome and will draw on the expertise of multidisciplinary pandemic science institutes that provide world-leading academic and scientific expertise such as the excellent Pandemic Institute in Liverpool, which I was pleased to visit yesterday. In the end, the Government must remain responsible and accountable for the policy and resource allocation decisions they take, but we believe that the external input of those bodies can add value to that decision making. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented in modern memory. It caused the loss of far too many lives. My thoughts, and the thoughts of the whole Government, continue to be with all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic. Many of them feel not just grief but anger that, as Baroness Hallett’s report sadly confirmed, the country was not as prepared as it should have been. My Department will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to the covid-19 inquiry. In all this, we must remember that the next crisis may not be the same as the last. There is a need for flexibility in our planning and learning, and we will build that into what we do. The Government also remain committed to engaging fully with the inquiry, and await Baroness Hallett’s findings and recommendations in subsequent module reports as she continues her important work. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

14:10:00

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join his tribute to Baroness Hallett for her report. We all know how challenging the pandemic was. Sadly, far too many lives were lost—I pay tribute to all the victims from across our country and the world. That is why the Conservative Government put in place the inquiry, and former Ministers have been co-operating with its work—I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for acknowledging that. It is clear from the inquiry’s investigations and findings so far that response times and processes were too slow and disjointed—we recognise that—but it is also clear that there was an incredibly challenging process and no easy answers. Module 1 examined our country’s pandemic resilience and preparedness, so I will focus on that. The Government’s response has identified a number of overarching implementations from the module recommendations. We are broadly supportive of the Government’s direction. As the inquiry report notes, it is important to strengthen cross-governmental communication and data sharing, and communication and co-ordination between devolved Administrations. I appreciate that the Government recognise that and are taking forward the recommendation to ensure that the Cabinet Office has a clearer and stronger role in crisis and resilience co-ordination. The Government have clearly signalled their intention to build on the work started under the last Government, who put together the resilience directorate within the Cabinet Office with the goal of ensuring clear accountability and leadership for long-term resilience and crisis planning. I hope that the steps that the Government have set out will successfully build on that. I am also thankful that they are building on the last Government’s work to lay the foundations of the resilience academy, and I look forward to tracking that progress. It is important to note that the Government intend to strengthen the articulation of requirements for resilience and emergency training qualifications. I am thankful that they are building on the work that we implemented to establish a new national exercising programme, and are planning a full pandemic exercise for this year. Importantly, we need to recognise that the risks that we will face will be dynamic, because we do not know what the future will hold. I hope that the pandemic exercise will involve cross-cutting segments of microbial resistance and technology infrastructure, which will be key challenges that continue to grow in importance. The Government have also emphasised the holistic work that can be conducted across all types of organisations as a result of the highly transparent risk register that we first published in 2023. I appreciate that they are setting out their intention to build on that, and offer a wider range of scenarios and frameworks to the register in future. However, they do not seem to fully recognise that there is far too much complication in the system, which risks masking fundamental matters of cross-governmental co-ordination with political measures. I recognise in the Government’s response the desire to ensure independent input into the whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience and, in doing so, establish a number of expert advisory groups, but I caution them that that must be backed up by real accountability and progress tracking, to ensure that the work conducted by those teams is enacted transparently and for clear reasons. They must not be just talking shops. The Government have announced a significant number of reviews, consultations and taskforces, but without real accountability and framework clarity, they risk being only a temporary solution to long-term issues. That is a particular concern when it comes to national resilience. Although we support the Government’s direction, I want to raise a couple of questions. On recommendation 3, the Minister mentioned mapping, which is very welcome, but will he expand a little on the combined impacts of different vulnerabilities for certain groups and how they can be overlaid in that mapping process? On recommendations 4 and 5 on the whole system emergency strategy and, crucially, that data element, is there data to support the strategy? What confidence does he have in that at the moment? Will he use the UK Biobank for that? There are critical issues around academic freedom as we look into very complex issues, and overlapping issues within communities across the country. On recommendation 6, what response has the Minister had so far from the devolved Governments? He said that they have been very positive, but could he go a little further? In response to recommendation 9, the red groups sounded good, but I was a little worried when he said, “We are establishing eight advisory groups to combat group-think.” That sounds a little like a tautology. I want to ensure that those groups will be properly independent and that the Government are challenged on their plans. On recommendation 7, there was an important point around reporting back the findings of the nationwide investigations. On the publishing and timeliness, the report asked for three-month publications—will the Minister speak to that? The Cabinet Office said that it is scoping and testing solutions to resolve multi-agency reports. Will he speak to that? Finally—thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—we must not lose sight of the fact that there are shifting landscapes, and our response will be a long-term thing. I appreciate the Government’s response today, but they have not yet responded to last year’s House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report on reforming the process by which public inquiries are conducted. That is slightly overdue, so if the right hon. Gentleman could update us on progress on that, I would be most grateful. We must ensure that the tracker is in place so that on issues such as this, the Horizon scandal or the infected blood scandal, we are always in the right place.

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s response and for his broad support for our response, including on the resilience directorate academy and the full pandemic exercise. Let me turn to his questions. On mapping, the data is getting better. The Government’s ability to gather and use data has improved over time, and it is important that we do that as well as we can. Data has been described as the new oil, and it is important that the Government, which have access to good data around the country, use that to map vulnerabilities and to make sure that the next crisis does not expose cracks in our society, as was the case the last time around. The right hon. Gentleman asked about work with the devolved Governments. Around those tables, people are not always of the same political party or outlook, but in my experience in the last six months, the spirit has been good and one of co-operation. It has been underpinned by the common understanding that, on an issue such as public protection, the public do not really care about political differences. They expect all of us, whatever our political stripe, to work together for their safety and the common good. That is what we should do. Red teaming and challenge are important, but they have to be put into context. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned accountability; I said in my statement that accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions ultimately has to rest with the Government. We are all for challenge and all for independent input into that, but at the end of the day, that is where the accountability lies and that is who has to take the resource allocation decisions. We will publish the findings of the pandemic exercise. I want to see inquiries come to conclusions more quickly so that victims of injustices can get justice more quickly. The final thing I say in response to the right hon. Gentleman is that he is right to say that the future may not be the same as the past; that is why flexibility has to be built into all this.

While listening to my right hon. Friend’s statement and the shadow Minister’s response, I have been reflecting on those friends who sadly died during the pandemic. I am sure everybody in the House will have their own experiences. My right hon. Friend mentioned the need for a new national pandemic planning exercise. After the last one, one of the press reports suggested that a recommendation was for senior Ministers to act quickly if a pandemic hit us. Can he confirm that one of the ways in which improvements will be made in our preparation on his watch will be that senior Ministers will be ready and will make decisions in a timely fashion?

That will all be tested in the exercise we have planned. Past planning exercises have sometimes planned for the wrong thing—that is the danger. That is why I say all the time that we have to make sure that we learn from what happened throughout the pandemic of a few years ago, but not make the assumption that the next pandemic or the next crisis will be exactly the same. That is what we have to do.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The findings of the inquiry are a harsh confirmation of what we already knew. They are that the UK was woefully unprepared for the pandemic: the focus was wrong, the leadership was lacking and the lessons from past crises were not learned. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that our hearts remain with those who lost loved ones during that tragic time, and I thank the family members who are in the Public Gallery today. To do right by them, crucially, we must ensure that this is a turning point. It is essential that the new Government take swift and decisive action to prepare for next time. I therefore welcome the Minister’s announcement of a pandemic response exercise this autumn; however, will that be a one-off or are further exercises planned and, if they are, how frequently? As well as the different, more proactive approach to disease outbreak preparedness that Baroness Hallett cites in her report, we must invest in public health, rather than simply throwing money at crises when they materialise. One of the key findings is that health inequalities and a less healthy population has left the nation less resilient. Does the Minister agree that public health should be a priority and that the public health grant, with a proportion set aside for those experiencing the worst health inequalities to co-produce plans for their communities, would be a step in the right direction? We need to help more people live more years of their life in good health. When I think back to those covid years, I think of the appalling loneliness and isolation of those in hospital or in care homes. Do the Government agree that patients and care home residents should be given a new legal right to maintain family contact in all health and care settings? Finally, on resilience forums, will the Minister confirm what funding plans there are in future for resilience forums? I was aware before Christmas that there was some lack of certainty about that—certainly, that is what I was hearing from my own Sussex resilience forum. We cannot risk our country not being ready for the future, and those are important questions.

The most fundamental thing, apart from specific recommendations or specific changes, is the underlying strength of the country and its services. That is true nowhere more than in the national health service. That is why the Budget, which has been attacked a lot, put in the resources to begin to turn the health service around. We can have the forums, the structures and the processes, but the underlying strength of the country is the most important thing. The hon. Lady asked about the exercise this autumn. I very much hope it will not be the last; the inquiry recommended that they happen on a regular basis. It will be the first for many years and we want to make sure we learn as much from it as possible. In terms of funding for local resilience forums, they play an important role and we were able to put some increased resources into local government in the next financial year. That area, like others, will have to be considered in the round in the spending review that will be published later this year.

I am less sanguine about the report than my right hon. Friend. The report, or what is part of a report—it is difficult to assess when we do not know what the rest will say—has been too expensive and has taken too long to produce. From reading it, it does not seem to me to include some of the fundamental questions that I and my constituents would like answered. What was the cost-benefit analysis of the decisions taken during lockdown, for instance? What about lockdown itself? Was that a benefit or a disbenefit? What was the cost of effectively closing down the NHS, apart from for covid patients? Where did the virus come from? Did it come from China, which most of the evidence seems to indicate? Those questions are not being answered. Furthermore, I do not believe that setting up a new quango in conjunction with the Cabinet Office, which has no experience of service delivery, will be the answer to any future epidemic. The report does not answer the questions I would like answered.

I hope my hon. Friend does not think I am sanguine; I am not sanguine at all. Anyone who reads the national risk register should not be sanguine because, as I said in my statement, we live in a world of risk and vulnerability. As for the inquiry’s work, the inquiry is independent and is not instructed by the Government on the specific areas it goes into. It has 10 modules, as decided by the inquiry because it is independent.

May I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) by expressing concerns about the inquiry? The Minister has been clear that he wishes it was not taking quite so long. It is taking far too long. What can we learn from other countries about how they have conducted their lessons-learned exercise, in order to make sure that the people watching the proceedings, who lost their loved ones, feel that something has been done, and done in good time? This is by no means the first public inquiry that has taken too long. The right hon. Gentleman is in the great position of not being responsible for setting up the inquiry. Will he set out what he thinks we should learn from failed and lengthy inquiries to make sure we do these urgent lessons-learned exercises much more quickly? The next emergency could strike tomorrow. We do not have time to hang around and have these long, blame-fest inquiries with criminal lawyers asking “gotcha” questions to get headlines.

The shadow Minister, in his response, also asked about the general question of inquiries. I believe there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether there can be a quicker way for the state to admit when it is wrong and get justice for the victims. However, it is important that in the processes we set up we do not lose the valuable question of independence and the valuable capacity these inquiries have for the victims to have a voice, which has sometimes been denied in other areas. We have to have a system where the state can admit when it gets things wrong and which gets justice for those who have felt the consequences of that.

I was a cabinet member during covid, responsible for public health. As I listened to my right hon. Friend’s statement, I felt so relieved that we are about to replace the chaos experienced by me and so many people across the country at that time with a forward-looking, orderly and strategic approach. Among the many things that have been mentioned, I was particularly pleased by the idea of creating a national vulnerability map. That is hugely needed. On hearing that the Department will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to the inquiry, will my right hon. Friend come to the House regularly to update on that implementation?

This is just module 1; there are other modules to be published, and I will update the House in some form when the Government respond to those. Of course, on top of that there are regular opportunities to question me and the Ministers in the Cabinet Office either at oral questions or in front of Select Committees.

I associate myself with the observations of the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). The fact is that we have an absolutely urgent imperative to address the dysfunctions of the British state that were exposed by the covid inquiry. I agree with everything that has been said about how bad things were in early 2020. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the importance of a stronger centre and a more accountable Cabinet Office— I think that is the right direction to be going in. However, does he also recognise that the parts of our society that did not fail in 2020 were the parts very far from Whitehall—local government, the private sector and our communities themselves? Does he agree that while the focus needs to be on improving Whitehall’s response, we also need to think about the resilience of local communities and ensuring that they can play their part in the next crisis?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. My experience in Wolverhampton, which I represent, was that the local authority did a great job of looking out for vulnerable people. An inquiry, perhaps by definition, places the emphasis on things that went wrong, but there was a great deal of experience during the pandemic that showed the best of society, with people looking out for one another and helping those who were vulnerable. We should draw on the things that went well, as well as those that went wrong.

In my previous role in health scrutiny in Lancashire, I got a bit fed up of hearing from Conservative politicians that no one could have seen covid coming, as if a global viral pandemic had not been top of the NHS risk register for years, and as if epidemiologists had not warned authorities that it was a matter of when, not if. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a disgraceful abdication of responsibility for the former Government to plead ignorance to the well-known risk of a global viral pandemic?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. There is always a risk of planning for the wrong thing, which is a risk I am very aware of as we try to do this forward-looking exercise. I was encouraged by what I saw yesterday in Liverpool at the Pandemic Institute, where the scientific expertise that we have in this country is trying to take the learning from that in the past and ensure that we do not assume that the next situation will be the same as the one we went through several years ago. It might be something similar, but it might also be something very different, which is transmitted differently and creates a whole different series of questions and requirements for the Government of the day.

I am delighted to hear that relations with the devolved Administrations are now on a collegiate basis. I have to say that my experience as a lowly special adviser with the Scotland Office at the tail end of the pandemic was nothing like that at all; it was very, very difficult. We faced constant battles with the Scottish Government, who wanted to put their oar into areas that really were nothing to do with them and constantly wanted change for the sake of change. I am therefore relieved to hear that the Cabinet Office seems to be taking a lead in this. Heaven forfend we face another situation like the covid pandemic, but we probably will. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that we will have a chain of command that makes it clear who is in charge, which must be this sovereign Parliament?

I said that co-operation was good on this issue. Of course, we live in a world where that might not always be the case on everything. However, I do think that, when it comes to public protection, people should leave their politics at the door and ask themselves just one question: how do we protect the public and get the country through this?

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vulnerable groups to pandemics. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. One of the most striking conclusions of the covid inquiry was that it was the most vulnerable people in our society who were hardest hit, whether that was because they had pre-existing health conditions or because they were on some of the lowest wages in this country. Will he tell the House what steps are being taken to ensure that, in the event of another incident of this nature, support reaches the most vulnerable people in our communities much more quickly than during the covid pandemic?

My hon. Friend is right. Cracks in our society were exposed; this did not affect all parts of society equally. We have to learn from that and respond to it. The very concept of having a society should mean that in an emergency we pull together and try to overcome it together. The map we are producing will help us somewhat in identifying where those risks are. However, as I said in my statement, the most important thing is the underlying strength of the country and its institutions, and, in this context, specifically that of the national health service itself.

In Cheltenham, in Sandford Park, we have an avenue of trees that were planted in honour of the covid heroes and the many victims that our town lost during the pandemic. Not far from there, there is a playground, and that playground was shut. There is nothing more dystopian for children than seeing the playground that they cherish shut. Children do not often have a voice in these kinds of discussions. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the next time there is a pandemic, we will take a much more reasonable approach to risk, as raised in the module, and that children will have a bigger voice, so that they will not suffer the mental health problems that we know so many have suffered as a result of the pandemic?

This is something the inquiry intends to look at in the future, but let us state the obvious: parents of young children in a flat with no outside space had a very different experience of the covid pandemic compared with someone with a nice big garden. That is true. I totally understand the public health decisions that were taken, but they did not affect everybody equally. That is something to ponder for the future.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. To be honest, as a former public health consultant, I looked on in amazement at what happened during the pandemic. I therefore welcome the fact that the report acknowledges and recognises that Exercises Alice and Cygnus were ignored, that that contributed to our lack of preparedness, and that we had a declining national health and exacerbating health inequalities. Another point that was raised in the report, and in the film “The Unequal Pandemic”, was the fact that there was such low awareness around the functions of public health, which were being reinvented at the centre. None of the legislation and regulations on public health protection were known. I have heard that reported back from directors of public health, who went into Cobra meetings where there was a total absence of understanding of basic legislation in this regard. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me on the relationship between the centre and local public health teams, which were decimated because there was such a lack of understanding of public health as a whole, but particularly about their health protection role, and that this issue of reinventing the wheel will not happen again?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I specifically mentioned local resilience forums in my opening statement for good reason. As I said a moment ago, I think it is really important that we recognise that, in an emergency, the centre, local government and the devolved Governments have to work together in the best interests of the public. I endorse what she said, as I have said a few times today, about the importance of the underlying strength of our health system in such an emergency.

I want to begin by saying that although the loss of every single life is of course tragic—and I saw that at first hand when volunteering—it is important to note that, despite repeated political attacks at the time suggesting that we had the worst death rate in Europe, now when we look at the figures properly we see that we actually had a lower death rate than Spain and Italy, and that we were broadly in line with Europe. I caution against diminishing the results of a national effort, which was actually broadly in line with other countries, in a desire to make political attacks on the Conservative party. As exhaustive as the inquiry’s proposals for things to look at is, to my mind I see a big gap which relates to the decision making of MPs. The inquiry does not seem to cover that. Those of us on the Government Benches—equally, it could be said of those on the Opposition Benches—were often faced with very difficult votes that were expected to go down to the wire and were asked to make very difficult decisions. MPs’ access to independent advice and scientific briefings was nowhere near like it should have been. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not part of the current inquiry, can he at least accept that it is a task for the Cabinet Office to think how we can better equip MPs with the information they need to make decisions on important votes of that nature?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service to the public during the pandemic, and anybody who worked or volunteered in the NHS or in other ways for what they did. Of course, MPs and the Government must have access to the best information they can, but I remind him of something else I said in my opening statement. In the end, the accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions lies with the Government of the day. I do not say that in a partisan way. It is important to establish it as an understanding of how we deal with these things in future.

I pass the national covid memorial wall every day on my way to this place. It and the inquiry are a reminder of what happens when Governments get things wrong. I absolutely welcome the announcement of a national pandemic response exercise later this year, but the inquiry found that a similar exercise took place in Scotland under the control of the Scottish Government before the pandemic, and that they failed to implement its conclusions. First, can the Minister reassure us that any outcomes from such an exercise will be reported to this House and that we will have oversight of the implementation of any recommendations? Secondly, I know it is outside the remit of the Minister’s statement, but can he give us an update on the recovery of any money lost through dodgy contracts to the mates of the previous Government?

Let me repeat the praise I gave to the volunteers who maintain the national covid memorial wall. Hon. Members may not be aware of it when they look at the red hearts, but over time they fade—they fade to pink. The reason they are kept red is that there is a group of volunteers down there overpainting the hearts to make sure that the wall does not fade away and that the memory of the names recorded does not fade away. The conclusions of the national pandemic exercise will be reported. Predictions are a dangerous game, but let me make one: there will be things that go wrong. Shortfalls will be exposed and not everything will go right, but that is part of the purpose of doing an exercise like this. I am happy to assure him in terms of learning from it and the conclusions.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also completely agree with him that in these matters the public do not care about party political differences. I note his commitment to an independent, whole-systems civil preparedness and resilience process going forward. I am just looking for some reassurance that the devolved Governments will be consulted and fully involved. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I want to press the Minister on recovery from some of the very wasteful PPE contracts that were awarded during the pandemic.

The hon. Member will know that we have appointed a covid fraud commissioner to try to recover as much as possible of the money that went wrong. I have sought not to be partisan today, but I do believe that the systems in place were wrong, and that there were some abuses and a significant loss of money. When we are in a situation where we want value for money for the public, we want to recover as much of that as possible. I repeat that relations with the devolved Governments on this kind of issue have been good so far. I hope it is the case that that is maintained through the national pandemic exercise that we are planning.

We all lived through the pandemic, and we all came to see the immense value of our key workers: the bus drivers who had to continue to make essential journeys; the carers who had no choice but to continue to provide close-quarters care; and the posties, some of whom I met recently in Welwyn Garden City at their delivery depot on Bessemer Road. They told me that when they had socially distanced conversations on the doorstep with lonely residents, it was often the only human interaction they had all day. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister reaffirm how important the Government believe the role of key workers is, and that, critically, for the next pandemic we have measures in place to make sure they are protected and supported?

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Let me echo his praise for all the key workers he mentioned. When the chips were down, we found out who was keeping the country going. Let me, from this Dispatch Box, thank each and every one of them for what they did to keep the country going during those very difficult times.

The Minister, quite rightly, expresses sympathy for the victims of covid-19, which is something we all share, but he has not mentioned anything about the victims of covid-19 vaccines, of whom there are thousands. We know that those people did the right thing and took the vaccines, but they were not warned of the risks. The Minister has been talking about risk assessments. There was a lack of risk engagement, and now we find that the compensation scheme, the vaccine damage payment scheme, is in place but not operating effectively or fairly. The Health Minister keeps talking about possibly amending it, but every time he mentions that it causes immense harm to all those who are still suffering as a consequence of having done the right thing and taken the covid-19 vaccines, when many of them now wish they had not.

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe the production and distribution of the vaccines was one of the things that went well and which this country contributed to, and that the availability of vaccines helped us to overcome the pandemic. In those cases where there were adverse reactions, there is a scheme in place, as he said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has met people affected. Of course, we want to help people affected through the kind of scheme that exists.

First, I thank the Minister for commenting on the importance of multidisciplinary research. From my own previous research, I know that that is very important, particularly in the development of AI algorithmic risk prediction models. I also had the pleasure yesterday of speaking to Professor Tom Solomon, the director of the Liverpool Pandemic Institute, which the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee had the pleasure of visiting recently. He impressed on me the value of physician researchers in conducting groundbreaking research. Does the Minister agree that it is vital we provide the time and funds to researchers such as Professor Solomon to help build our national resilience to future pandemics?

Let me echo my hon. Friend’s praise for Professor Solomon and the work that he and the Pandemic Institute are doing. He is right to underline the value of research, as is my hon. Friend. As has been pointed out throughout these exchanges, the next crisis that the country faces may be very different from the last, so it is important that we use one of this country’s great assets, its tremendous research institutes and research capability, to scan the horizon as well as we can and to be as well prepared as we possibly can.

Having served on the frontline during covid, I am acutely aware of the sacrifices made by clinicians, patients and staff. However, when it comes to preparing for any future pandemics, part of the solution is ensuring that we have robust epidemiological research. Could the Minister tell us, in rather more granular detail, what assessment he has made of the current projects commissioned by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman is right about the need for robust research. I do not analyse the research projects one by one, but I thank him for his service, and underline what I have said a few times today: the best insurance that we can have in responding to another crisis like the one that we went through some years ago is the underlying strength of the country and the NHS. That is why we have made the decisions to put resources into the NHS to help to turn it around and make it stronger in the future than it is today.

I spent the pandemic as a trade unionist at the TUC, supporting Frances, now Baroness, O’Grady in her fight for the rights to safety of working people. The covid inquiry heard time and again about the impact of the pandemic on those with low wages and insecure work—people who had to go into work even when it was not safe because otherwise they could not feed their families, and who were disproportionately from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Will the Minister ensure that the new national vulnerability map treats insecure workers as vulnerable for the purpose of crisis planning and resilience, and will he ensure that the unions are key stakeholders in building that resilience in the UK?

My hon. Friend is right to underline the need to thank the key workers, many of whom were low paid and many of whom did come from ethnic minority backgrounds. They kept the country going, and sometimes had to put themselves at risk to help and protect the rest of us. I thank my hon. Friend and those who represent working people for the work that they did during the pandemic.

May I ask about the specifics of the Government’s response to module 1? I was interested to hear about the national vulnerability map, which could help with a range of matters including digital exclusion as well as public health, but let me ask the Minister two questions. First, has he taken into consideration the findings of Chris Whitty’s 2021 report on coastal communities and their specific vulnerabilities? Secondly, while this is obviously a hugely valuable undertaking, I do not want us to create a one-trick pony, so could the Minister try to seize the big opportunity to build a better system for storing and using citizen data that could benefit everyone and give all sorts of people the support that they need when they need it?

As I said a while ago, data has been described as the new oil, and there are good reasons for using it. The Government and the state have a duty to try to use data to secure the best outcomes for the public, and one example is using it to map our vulnerabilities. I have been praising people for what they did during the pandemic, so let me now praise Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, for what he did then and what he continues to do today. The country is very lucky to have him, and I thank him for everything that he does.

It is a source of national shame that our country was so underprepared for the covid pandemic, and the Conservatives need to take their fair share of the responsibility for that. We all worry about where the next pandemic will come from, and I am particularly concerned about the risk posed by dengue fever. For those who are not aware of it, let me explain that it is a disease spread by mosquitoes. It has been travelling closer and closer to the UK in recent years owing to rising temperatures and climate change, and has most recently been found in Paris. As one who represents a constituency on the south coast, I am especially worried about the warning that it could be within the UK within years. There is currently no cure, but there is a vaccine going through trials thanks to international collaboration, of which our country is a part. May I ask what steps the Government are taking to improve our preparedness for the next pandemic, wherever it may come from and however it may be transmitted?

One of the risks that we face is posed by mosquito-borne diseases—viruses of various kinds. The UK Health Security Agency monitors such diseases so that we have the most up-to-date information possible. This is a good example of scanning the horizon and understanding that the next crisis we face may not be the same as the last.

I agree with other Members who have said that this inquiry is taking too long, costing too much and, in many cases, not asking the right questions. The results of the previous pandemic response exercise some nine years ago, Operation Cygnus, were so shocking that they were kept from this House and the British people. Will the Minister commit that the results of the pandemic exercise later this year will be transmitted totally openly, with full transparency, to this House and the British people?

I thank the hon. Member for his two questions. I have said what I said on the speed of the state’s admission when things go wrong. We do need to think about that and look at it. As for the results, the findings of the exercise will be made public, and let me repeat my prediction: they will probably show things that have gone wrong and areas where we need to improve. Anyone who carries out such an exercise and does not expect that will face a nasty surprise.

One of the positives we saw during the covid pandemic was an outpouring of neighbourliness. Churches and faith communities played a key role in mobilising support for those most in need, delivering meals, shopping and prescription medications to those who were advised to stay at home. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all those volunteers and assure the House that faith communities and other community organisations will be involved in the local resilience forums, so that they are integral to both the resilience planning and incident response?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: many of these efforts showed the best of us and how much people were prepared to look out for one another. I was really touched by the efforts of the Sikh gurdwaras in Wolverhampton in distributing food to people of all faiths and none, and of other faith groups and community groups who did similar things to help the most vulnerable people during the pandemic.

I want to pay my respect to all those we have lost, and I give my heart to those who have lost loved ones and have to live their lives without them. In Bassetlaw, I have met many families who have needlessly lost loved ones. My good friend Pete Armitage died on 6 April 2020 in hospital, unable to breathe, without his wife by his side, and with only six of us at his funeral. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the volunteers who stepped up and went out, without any fear for their own health or their lives, to deliver food, to stand on vaccination lines and to help at local food banks. I want to ensure that we in Parliament never forget those names. I pay tribute to them, and I ask the Minister to do the same.

In my final answer of the afternoon, let me warmly endorse what my hon. Friend said on both counts. Let us remember all those who lost their lives and give thanks to the many relatives and friends who are keeping those names alive and trying to make sure that we learn the lessons from what happened in the past. Let us praise all the volunteers who helped people in any way. It was a very tough time in this country and others, but those efforts—that reaching out—showed the best of us, and we should not forget it.