(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the testing of care home residents during the covid pandemic.

The covid-19 pandemic was an unprecedented global health emergency involving a novel coronavirus that we were still learning about day by day, even hour by hour. Even in those early days, the UK Government and colleagues in my Department were clear that testing would be crucial. That is why the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), set ambitious testing targets to drive a true step change in the quantity of tests, because he knew that testing would be a vital lifeline until vaccines could be developed and proven safe and effective.

The importance of testing was never in doubt, and there was full agreement on that in every part of Government, from the chief medical officer to the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister. But in a situation where we had the capacity to test, at most, a few thousand each day, tough decisions about prioritisation had to be made. Those decisions were taken on the best public health advice available. Thanks in no small part to the bold testing ambitions driven by the Government, we were able to build the largest testing network in Europe.

I put on record my thanks to all those who worked tirelessly on this mission day and night, from civil servants to the NHS and, of course, our incredible social care workforce, who did so much to look after their residents. They all deserve our lasting gratitude.

The situation in our care homes was extremely difficult during the pandemic, not just in England but across the UK and, indeed, across the world. Because of the vulnerability of residents and the large number of people who come in and out of care homes, it is vital that we learn lessons.

It is equally vital that we learn those lessons in the right context. Selective snippets of WhatsApp conversations give a limited and, at times, misleading insight into the machinery of government at the time. The covid inquiry is important so that we have the right preparations in place to meet future threats and challenges.

Throughout the covid pandemic, Ministers repeatedly claimed that they had thrown a protective ring around England’s care homes and that they had always followed the evidence and scientific advice, but WhatsApp messages from the former Health Secretary revealed in today’s Daily Telegraph suggest that nothing could be further from the truth.

Will the Minister confirm that the chief medical officer first advised the Government to test all residents going into care homes in early April 2020? Can she explain why the former Health Secretary rejected that advice and failed to introduce community testing until 14 August—a staggering four months later? Can she publish the evidence that following the advice would have muddied the waters, as the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) claimed? And can she confirm that 17,678 people died of covid in care homes between the CMO’s advice and the Government finally deciding to act? She should know, because she was responsible for care homes at the time.

Former Ministers are touring the studios this morning claiming that this delay was simply because there were not enough tests. Where is the evidence for that? Even if tests were in short supply, why were care homes residents not prioritised when the devastating impact of covid was there for all to see?

Nobody denies that dealing with covid was unbelievably difficult, especially in the early days, but care home residents and staff were simply not a priority. Yet the former Prime Minister and former Health Secretary were first warned about the emerging horror in care homes by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) in March 2020. I myself raised the lack of testing in care homes with the Health Secretary on 8 April, 28 April, 19 May and 17 June 2020, long before the CMO’s advice was finally followed.

The Minister will no doubt say that all these issues will be looked at in the public inquiry, but its findings will not be available for years. The families of the 43,000 care home residents who lost their lives will be appalled at the former Health Secretary attempting to rewrite history—an attempt that will turn to ashes along with his TV career. We need more humility and less celebrity from the right hon. Member for West Suffolk, and above all we need answers.

It is relatively easy for the hon. Member to come to the House today and make these highly political points. Knowing how she and I worked together in the pandemic, and that she and I talked about all that we were doing to look after people in care homes, I am shocked and disappointed by the tone she has taken today, when we are dealing with extremely serious questions.

I will turn first to some of the difficult prioritisation decisions that were made, given the limited quantity of testing we had at the beginning of the pandemic. The Government followed the expert public health advice available at the time. We had the capacity to test just 3,000 cases a day in mid-March, and I am sure colleagues will understand why the health advice at the time was to prioritise those working on our NHS frontline and, for instance, the testing of people in hospitals and care homes who had symptoms. In fact, the courts have already agreed that our prioritisation decisions on testing were completely rational.

As we dramatically ramped up testing capacity, we also adjusted that prioritisation in line with the public health advice and the capacity, so by mid-April—just a month later—with testing capacity exceeding 38,000, we were in a position to test more widely. In fact, that is reflected in our adult social care plan published on 15 April, which made it clear that everyone discharged from a hospital to a care home should be tested even if asymptomatic, and that all discharged patients, regardless of the result of their test, should be isolated for 14 days. It is worth reflecting just what a dramatic increase in testing the Government oversaw, from just 3,000 in March 2020 to over 38,000 in mid-April, to over 100,000 by mid-May, to the point where we could test many millions in a single week. We established the largest testing network in Europe from a standing start, and the science proves that it saved lives.

The hon. Lady asked about the content of the WhatsApp messages that have been published. I say to her that it is a selection from a larger quantity of messages. Clearly, while there were discussions and debates between Ministers and colleagues, partly on WhatsApp, there were also meetings and conversations and other forums in which advice was given and decisions made. A huge quantity of that is with the public inquiry, but I can say to her that, for instance, a meeting to discuss the implementation of the advice on testing was not referenced in the WhatsApp messages she is talking about. There is an email following the exchange to which she is referring that says, “We can press ahead straightaway with hospitals testing patients who are going into care homes. And we should aspire, as soon as capacity allows and when we have worked out an operational way of delivering this, that everyone going into a care home from the community could be tested.” As I say, she is basing her comments on very selective information.

As I said, the hon. Lady knows how the Government, and me personally, strained every sinew, worked day and night, and did everything in our power to help people, and specifically the most vulnerable, during the pandemic. She and I spoke about it regularly during our frequent calls. In fact, at the time I appreciated her perspective, questions and insights from her own area of Leicester. I say to her that we should go about this discussion in the right way for the country. This is not the time to play political games. We should look to save lives. That is the purpose of the public inquiry: to learn lessons in the right way in case this should ever happen again.

My hon. Friend will agree that it was Labour that called for a public inquiry, and the Government agreed to it. It is a full public inquiry and we could not have a better judge than Dame Heather Hallett, one of our most experienced and distinguished judges. She will do a very thorough job. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are seeing today is a bit of trial by media and party politics?

My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right; we are having a public inquiry and the Government are fully co-operating with it so that it has all the information required to look through all that happened, to investigate it and, rather than trying to score political points, to truly learn lessons for the benefit of the country.

On 2 April 2020, I wrote to the former Health and Social Care Secretary, jointly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), highlighting the urgent need for testing in care homes for staff and residents and, in particular, for patients being discharged from hospital. I knew at the time, as did other colleagues, that without that testing, care homes in my constituency and those across the country were suffering a heavy toll of deaths of residents. Indeed, one of our care home managers died of covid in my constituency.

Furthermore, at a session of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care in July 2021, I asked the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) why the Government had not taken up the offer from care providers of facilities to isolate people discharged from hospital before admitting them to care homes. He told me that he did not know anything about the letter, despite it being sent by Care England. Will the Minister now admit that the Department and Ministers failed to understand and to involve social care in the key decisions about the covid pandemic, and ignored letters offering help that could have saved lives?

The hon. Lady is right about the importance of testing. It is a view that she has and that I had at the time; some of the exchanges will show how I, as Social Care Minister, was arguing very hard for testing for care homes, as Members would expect. I know that other Ministers and other people were arguing for the things that they had oversight of. Ultimately, of course, the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister had to make decisions, based every step of the way, clearly, on the scientific advice on these things, as we did. To that point, during the course of the pandemic, as the capacity allowed, millions of tests were distributed to care homes. As I have said, as the capacity increased, care homes were prioritised in that process. Specifically to address one of the points she made, let me say that the guidance set out on 15 April was not only that everyone discharged from hospital to a care home should be tested, but that they should be isolated.

It seems that the Opposition want to rewrite history. The fact is that at the time people did not know what was right or what was wrong. The then Secretary of State listened to a whole lot of advice and then had to make a decision. Even one of the WhatsApp messages I have seen said:

“Tell me if I’m wrong”.

What should happen is that the covid inquiry should deal with all these matters properly. The one question I have for the Minister is this: is it possible to get the covid inquiry to report earlier?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the covid inquiry being the right place for people to go through the details of what happened—who said what and, as he said, the genuine debates that took place behind the scenes. This was a new virus and, at the time, we had only limited information about it. For instance, when it first hit our shores, it was not known who would be most vulnerable to it. We also did not know about asymptomatic transmission. There was a huge amount of uncertainty at the time, but the best possible decisions were made. As for the timing of the public inquiry, that is not within the control of Ministers.

The leaked WhatsApp messages from the then Health and Social Care Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), showed that, despite a shortage of covid tests in September 2020, one of the Minister’s advisers sent a test to the home of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) by courier. This is yet more evidence that it is one rule for Conservative Ministers and another for everyone else. Can the Minister please inform the House how many other Government Ministers, Conservative MPs and their families received priority tests during the pandemic when there was a shortage of tests?

It is difficult for me as a Minister to see WhatsApp messages from me in the pages of a newspaper. If the hon. Lady has read those, she will have seen that I was seeking a test for a member of my family and that I used exactly the same test app as everybody else to try to access a test that was needed.

I seem to recall that two years ago, when there was a limited supply of testing equipment, there were all sorts of calls for certain groups to be prioritised. There were also urgent calls for available beds in hospitals to be freed up to cope with the likely surge in cases. In hindsight, some of those priorities may have been wrong, but at the time it was an urgent situation. Will my hon. Friend confirm that exactly the same set of priorities about access to testing prevailed in Wales, and it took the Welsh Government two weeks longer to mandate testing for care home residents in Wales than it did in England? Why are we not seeing equal outrage from the Opposition about that?

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the challenges that were faced around the world in handling the pandemic, and very conspicuously for us across the UK. Decisions were having to be taken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as here in England. Had Opposition Members been in our position, in government, and having to make these difficult decisions, I am sure that they, like us, would have strained every sinew and done their very best to make the best possible decisions in a situation of limited information.

Even if we now know that the Secretary of State was not following the scientific advice, the Minister was in her job at the time these decisions were being made. Can she explain why she did not do the right thing then? Was she not listening to the chief medical officer either?

I fear that the hon. Lady did not hear my previous answer, which was that the public health advice and the advice of the chief medical officer was followed. Of course there is a job to do when advice is given, and then there are the practicalities of implementation. As the volume of tests became available, those tests were used as advised, following the public health advice.

I will not forget the totally shameless politicking by Opposition Members during the pandemic. I specifically remember the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is no longer in her place, and the Leader of the Opposition talking about how we had the worst death toll in Europe. They said that again and again. [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Minister say from a sedentary position that we did, but the studies now show that we were ahead of Italy, ahead of Spain, broadly in line with France and Germany, and very far from the worst in Europe. Have we ever heard any Opposition Member come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for misleading the British public about our record during the pandemic? Does my hon. Friend agree that they might seek to do that before criticising us any further for our record?

My hon. Friend is right. The right thing for us to do as a country is to reflect overall on how we handled the pandemic, on the decisions that we made and, indeed, on how prepared we were in the first place. That is the right way to do it. Of course we regret every life that was lost; I think about the families who lost mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and grandmas. It is so deeply sad that so many lives were lost, but that is something that affected us here in England, across the UK and, indeed, across the world. But the right thing for us to do is to look at these things in the reasoned environment of the inquiry and then use the lessons learned and the reflections from that inquiry to make sure that, in the event that we ever have to face another pandemic like it, we can do better.

The Government entered the pandemic unprepared, ignoring the lessons from Operation Cygnus, and ran the NHS at 96% capacity. That was part of the problem. We all know that mistakes happen. We all know that it was really difficult. However, today is disappointing, because some humility should have been brought to this place. More than 17,000 people lost their lives. It is our job as the Opposition to scrutinise decisions. The former Secretary of State has thrown his colleagues under a bus because of his own vanity, but I suggest that Government Ministers need to use this time before the inquiry to ease families’ suffering by coming forward with more detail on actually what did happen.

There has already been a legal investigation into some of the aspects that we are talking about today. Given the huge number of decisions that had to be made and the period of time that we are talking about, the right way to do this is to bring all the evidence together, in the form of a public inquiry, and have it fully examined. That is the best way to answer the sorts of questions that the hon. Lady suggests.

This is a profoundly serious question—literally a matter of life and death. As such, I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that the appropriate way to reach conclusions is through a proper public inquiry conducted by a very distinguished judge. Can she assure the House that the Government will be as transparent and as open as possible in giving evidence to that public inquiry, so that we can all be confident at the end of this that we have reached the appropriate conclusion?

I can absolutely assure my right hon. Friend that the Government are sharing with the public inquiry a huge quantity of evidence so that it can reach the best possible, best informed conclusions.

The emails and WhatsApp messages expose the fact that the scientific advice was that people leaving hospital should be swabbed before going into care homes, and the Government ignored that. That shows that the Government were not following scientific advice. The Minister has said that other priorities had to be considered before the Government could implement that policy, but no one would have been more aware of the competing priorities than Professor Whitty. What was it that the Government knew that Professor Whitty did not when they decided not to follow his advice?

It really feels as though Opposition Members have not been listening to my answers. The public health advice was followed. The situation was that we had a limited capacity for testing. That is not spelled out in those messages, because, as I have said, other meetings and other conversations were taking place. As soon as testing capacity was available, further testing was used—for example, on people being discharged to care homes. Having been Care Minister at the time, I can tell the hon. Gentleman how hard we worked across Government. We all worked—not only me, but all of us involved in this—to get millions of tests out, during the course of the pandemic, to care homes in order to help protect those residents. This was followed by our prioritising those in care homes for the vaccination because, when it came down to it, although testing was helpful, what really made a difference was being able to vaccinate people. That is what really started to provide protection.

Is it not regrettable, if all too typical, that the Labour party ignores the fact that when the pandemic struck there was capacity for only 2,000 tests a day—ignoring, too, the huge, successful efforts to massively increase that capacity—and instead chooses to leap on partial information to make political points rather than listen to the full facts of the public inquiry?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about how we ramped up incredibly fast from a capacity of just 3,000 tests a day in March 2020, to more than 38,000 in mid-April, and more than 100,000 by May. We were then able to test many millions per week during the course of the pandemic. That was the most extraordinary increase in the capacity to produce, carry out and analyse tests, and he is absolutely right to draw attention to it.

The Minister said that what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said was shocking. What is shocking is the number of people who died but who might have been saved in the first place. Is the Minister really saying that, at the beginning of the pandemic, there was no rush to get people out of hospital and back into the community without being tested?

The questions about the discharge policy have been interrogated on a number of occasions, including by Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman will well know that in general, and in the work that we are doing now on discharge, it is rarely good for somebody who is medically fit for discharge to continue to be in hospital beyond that time. So of course it is right that when people are medically fit, they should be discharged home. The guidance of how that was done was set out on a number of occasions during the pandemic, and that guidance was updated both as we learned more about the virus and as greater testing capacity became available.

I am very proud of this Conservative Government’s record during the pandemic: 400 million tests, a world-leading and world-beating vaccine programme, and £400 billion spent to keep jobs and people’s prospects going. Clearly, hard decisions were made, and hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we should not be reflecting with hindsight now; we should deal with the facts at hand. Does the Minister agree that this Government will continue to take measures, and that if—God forbid—there is another pandemic, we will not let party politicking get in the way of making decisions to protect lives, fund jobs and keep our country going?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the extraordinary things that were done during the pandemic. I do not think that the Government should seek to take credit for that; so many people worked incredibly hard, whether in local authorities, social care or the NHS, or through their involvement in supply chains and the huge efforts to secure personal protective equipment when that was incredibly hard to get hold of across the world. I am glad that he draws attention to some of those things. He is absolutely right that, in the context of the public inquiry, we should reflect overall.

In April 2020, now-disappeared Government guidance in relation to hospital discharges stated:

“Negative tests are not required prior to transfers/admissions into the care home.”

It was later reported that the Minister then leaned on Public Health England to alter its proposed advice to care homes from ensuring that those discharged from hospitals tested negative to not requiring any testing at all. Why, at every stage, were the Government content to send people to their deaths in our care homes?

I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s account at all. If she looks back at one of the legal cases that has looked into this question, she may find more accurate information about some of the conversations that went on behind the scenes. I can assure her that, as she would expect, in my capacity as social care Minister, I fought the corner for people receiving care—both home care and in care homes—throughout the pandemic.

Leaked WhatsApp messages will be partial and selective, but in reading even those I note that the Minister was doing her job on behalf of my constituents. In a message on 8 April, she spoke up for a care home in Newcastle-under-Lyme and raised it with the Government and her fellow Ministers. Everyone was doing their best. I served in the lessons learned inquiry, and there are lessons that can be learned with the benefit of hindsight, but the hindsight that we have seen from the Labour Front Bench is opportunistic. Does she agree that the Government were doing everything they could to respond to an unprecedented situation under severe pressure and severe supply and capacity constraints?

My hon. Friend is 100% right. The context is absolutely important as part of this conversation. It was a global pandemic about which very little was known and about which we worked incredibly hard to find out more, and on which we continually made the best possible decisions in the light of the information that we had. At all times, we prioritised protecting people and saving lives, particularly those who we learned would be most vulnerable. It is extremely disappointing to see an attempt to play politics with this issue.

Care home residents and their families were failed not just at the beginning of the pandemic but in the months and years that followed, as families and loved ones were prevented from visiting. The leaked WhatsApps show that the Minister was arguing against the ban on visiting. Can she say why the ban was sustained for so long throughout the pandemic, and what plans she has to ensure that families with loved ones in care homes have the right to visit if this ever happens again?

I know how strongly the hon. Member feels about this. Clearly, we are having ongoing conversations about visiting in care homes at the moment. As is evident in the WhatsApps, I was concerned during the pandemic about ensuring that families were able to see loved ones in care homes. As I have said in response to a number of questions, public health advice had to be taken into account all the way through the pandemic. Getting the right balance between protecting people from the risk of covid being taken into care homes and seeing friends and family will, I am sure, be looked into as part of the public inquiry discussions to answer questions such as his about the decisions taken on visiting. I will continue to work with him here and now to ensure that those who are currently in care homes get the visiting that they need.

The front page of today’s Telegraph, which reveals that the medical advice was not followed, will be heartbreaking for so many families up and down the country, re-opening the grief that so many felt about the loss of their loved ones. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s responses, and she has basically said that she is unable to compel the public inquiry to move more quickly—that it is above her pay grade. But what she could do now is commit to lobbying the Government to complete that public inquiry before the end of the year, and to doing everything she can to bring those answers forward for all those families who are today feeling so deeply hurt and upset.

On the first point about the use of public health advice, the hon. Lady is wrong; all decisions were informed by public health advice. On her request about the public inquiry, that inquiry is independent of government, so I cannot do what she asks.

To reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) just made, every time there is a statement, every time there is a revelation, every time such an issue is raised, whether in this House or in the press, it triggers trauma for many people who have not healed from losing their loved ones, who were not able to go to funerals, and who were not able to seek closure. I hope that the Minister will reflect on her response in that context.

To come back to the public inquiry, Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice said that the revelations show why the inquiry must allow the bereaved families to

“be heard in the hearings and for our lawyers to cross-examine key people”—

including the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock)—

“so we can get full answers to our questions in the right setting instead of having to relive the horrors of our loss through exposés.”

Does the Minister agree?

As I have said, we are talking about, very sadly, people’s lives being lost—people’s mothers and fathers, grans and grandpas, sons and daughters, and sisters and brothers. We should always remember the genuine and real human cost, as well as all those who worked in health and social care looking after dying people and who had a traumatic time themselves.

On the trauma that the hon. Lady talks about, it is Labour Front Benchers who have asked the urgent question and made this conversation happen in this forum rather than in the context of a public inquiry, which might encourage a more reasoned form of debate. I hope she will have noticed that my tone fully appreciates the points that she makes, but it is not for me to dictate who will give evidence to the public inquiry.

As the Minister will recall, I spoke for the Opposition on dozens of regulations to do with the pandemic, and on occasions I questioned some of the decisions that were made. The suspicion was that sometimes political rather than medical or scientific decisions were taken. What has come out overnight has caused me to question that again, and I hope she can understand why. It is an important question of trust for us as politicians but also for the wider public. Does she agree that rather than a partial and selective release of information to sell newspapers or books, the public deserve from the Government the release of all information so that we can get to the bottom of this?

I do remember many of those SI debates. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not political decision making as he suggests. At every step of the way, Ministers such as I, the Health Secretary and of course the Prime Minister were making incredibly difficult decisions but always trying to do the right thing to save people’s lives and to protect people from that cruel virus which particularly attacked those who were most vulnerable, such as the frail elderly. In doing so, we continuously took public health advice. The way to look into everything that happened is indeed through the public inquiry: that is where the evidence is being provided and that is the forum in which the reflections will be taken and the lessons can be learned.

My heart goes out to the bereaved families and I cannot imagine what they must be feeling again today. My heart also goes out to care workers, many of whom lost their lives having contracted covid. Many also survived but are now living with long covid and have lost their livelihoods. The Minister may be aware that advice from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council that would give compensation to just some of those brave workers is currently with the Department for Work and Pensions. In a recent meeting with me, the Minister told me that it could take years for that to be taken up. What conversations has this Minister had with the DWP and, if it will take years, will her Department set up a compensation scheme so that those brave workers get the support they deserve?

As the hon. Lady says, care workers were among those on the frontline during the pandemic and they had some incredibly difficult experiences. They took the risk of catching covid and, very sadly, some care workers and NHS workers were among those who lost their lives. Others have long covid. The question of compensation is currently with the Department for Work and Pensions. The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), is in his place on the Front Bench: his Department is looking at this and will respond in due course.

I thank the Minister for her answers. Everyone’s thoughts and prayers are with those who lost loved ones. The impact of the covid lockdown on mental health was felt most keenly in care homes. To see what the elderly people were put through, and learn that the full protections were not in place and they could not see loved ones at the end of life, is totally unacceptable. What would the Minister offer to those who lost precious hours with those they loved and adored on hearing this tragic news today?

I reiterate to those living in care homes and their loved ones and families that the Government took every step throughout the pandemic to protect those we knew were vulnerable. For instance, we prioritised testing with more than 180 million tests going to care homes during the pandemic, and we prioritised vaccinations. I remember talking to residents in care homes at the time, and vaccination was a huge moment for them because it was the first time they had felt really protected from that cruel virus. I know how hard it was for families that they could not see loved ones in care homes, and that was one reason we put out guidance about visiting, saying that if someone was close to end of life they should be able to receive visitors. I will continue to do my utmost as Minister for Social Care to make sure that we do our very best for those living in care homes.

Today I can announce that we intend to legislate as soon as possible to introduce an independent public advocate; to put victims and the bereaved at the heart of our response to large-scale public disasters; to make sure they get the support they deserve through public inquests and inquiries; and to make sure they get the answers they need to move forward in their lives.

I know the whole House will recall that fateful day of 15 April 1989, when thousands of fans prepared to watch the FA cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. Ninety-seven men, women and children lost their lives, unlawfully killed in our country’s worst ever sporting disaster. What happened at Hillsborough was a monumental and devastating tragedy. To this day, I remember watching the scenes in horror, and the impact is felt to this day, especially by the families and friends of the victims.

Of course, for Hillsborough’s survivors and the bereaved, that terrible day was just the beginning of a 34-year ordeal. It was followed by an appalling injustice. Fans were blamed for their own injuries. Survivors and the bereaved were blocked at every turn in their search for answers. We must learn the lessons of Hillsborough and we must make sure they never happen again.

In the wider context, major disasters involving significant loss of life are mercifully rare in this country. But, as Hillsborough, Grenfell and the Manchester bombings have shown, when they do happen, victims, families and communities have not received the answers to their questions, nor the support they need. We are duty bound, as a Government and as a House, to make sure that that never happens again and, positively, to ensure that those families and communities never again have to struggle in anguish against a system created to help them, in order to get the truth, and some measure of accountability.

The IPA will go some way to making good on the Government’s longstanding promise to ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough victims, and other victims, is never repeated. It will be passed into law, and made up of a panel of experts to guide survivors and the bereaved in the aftermath of major disasters. It will deliver in six important respects that I will outline for the House.

First, the IPA will provide practical support to the families of the deceased, and individuals, or their representatives, who have suffered a devastating or life-changing injury. That practical support will include helping them to understand their rights, such as their right to receive certain information at inquests or inquiries, and signposting them to support services, for example financial or mental health support. In particular, the IPA will help victims every step of the way, from the immediate aftermath of a tragic event, right through to the conclusion of investigations, inquiries or inquests. We will make IPA support available to the closest next of kin relative, both parents where they are separated or divorced, or to a close friend if there is no close family. That support will also be there for those whose loved ones die after the tragedy as a result of their injuries—a particular issue in relation to Grenfell, as I know from my experience as housing Minister. The IPA will also offer support to injured victims or their representatives.

Secondly and critically, the IPA will give the victims a voice when they need it most. It will advocate on their behalf with public authorities and Government, for example, where they have concerns about the engagement and responsiveness of public authorities such as the police or local authorities, or where the victims and bereaved want an investigation or inquiry set up more swiftly, to ensure maximum transparency.

Thirdly, the IPA will give a voice to the wider communities, not just the directly affected victims and bereaved, that have been affected most by the tragedy in question. To achieve that, we will set up a register of advocates from a range of different professions, backgrounds and geographical areas, including doctors, social workers, emergency workers, clergy, people with media-handling experience—often that is another burden that victims will not have experienced—and others. Communities will be able to nominate an advocate to act on their behalf, in order to express their particular concerns and ensure that their voice is heard as a community.

Fourthly, the IPA will be supported by full-time, permanent staff so that it can act swiftly when a tragedy occurs to make sure that the support is there for the victims and the families from day one. Critically, the IPA will be there to consult with and represent victims and their families before any inquiry is set up, so it will be able to make representations on the type of inquiry, whether it is statutory or non-statutory, and other important functional issues, such as the data controller powers available to any inquiry and the relationship it may have with the IPA in the exercise of such functions.

Fifthly, the scope of the IPA will be extended to cover events in England and Wales, but of course we are mindful of the devolved settlements, so we will work with all the devolved Administrations to ensure that our plans are co-ordinated with the support offered outside England and Wales. Finally, although the IPA is first and foremost about doing better by the victims and survivors, it is worth acknowledging that it is also in the wider interests of the public. It will ensure that we achieve a better relationship between public bodies, the Government and the bereaved; that we get better, quicker answers; and that we can learn and act on the lessons from such tragedies more decisively.

I can tell the House that the preparatory work is well under way to establish the IPA, and we will place it on a statutory footing as soon as possible. I will say more about the legislative vehicle shortly.

Of course, there have been other important reforms in recent years to support and empower victims and their families. We have made inquests more sympathetic to the bereaved with a refreshed, accessible guide to coroner services, so the process, which can feel like a minefield to navigate, is easier to digest and understand. We have removed means testing for the exceptional case funding for legal representation at an inquest, which means that applying for legal aid is easier and less intrusive. People who have suffered a traumatic bereavement no longer have to submit the details of their personal finances to the Legal Aid Agency; if their case meets the exceptional case funding criteria, they will be entitled to legal aid whatever their means.

More broadly, we are putting victims at the heart of our justice system by quadrupling victims funding compared with 2010, and we are giving them a louder voice through the upcoming victims Bill. The creation of an independent public advocate to give greater voice to the victims and the bereaved of major tragedies is the next important step forward.

I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families for their courage and determination despite every setback and to their long-standing struggle to stop other families from enduring the same anguish in future. They have always maintained that their struggle for truth and justice for the 97 was of national significance, and I agree entirely. I also pay tribute to the families of those who died at Grenfell and the Manchester Arena bombing. Our hearts go out to them for their loss and I pay tribute to them for their dignified courage.

I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to hon. Members in this House and those in the other place who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), Lord Wills, the Mayor of Liverpool and others, for their steadfast commitment to establishing an IPA. I will continue to work closely with all those hon. Members, the Hillsborough families, the Grenfell groups and the families of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing to ensure that their experiences are taken into account and we get the detail of the IPA right as we establish it.

I pay particular tribute to the right reverend James Jones KBE for his work on Hillsborough and his important report. I met him last week and the Government will respond to the wider report this spring. We know in our heads and hearts that there is still much more to do to heal the wounds from that horrendous and heartbreaking tragedy, but this is an important step forward. The IPA will make a real difference. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. For decades, the Hillsborough families fought for justice and for the truth about how 97 innocent children, women and men were unlawfully killed in wholly avoidable circumstances. They faced a cover-up by public authorities that hid the truth and blamed the victims. Those brave families did more than seek justice for their loved ones; they sought to shine a light on what had gone so tragically wrong, because that is how we learn how not to make the same mistake again, but it should never have taken more than three decades.

I was in Sheffield on that fateful day in 1989, just a mile or so from Hillsborough, with a junior doctor friend who was called back to the hospital to treat the victims and deal with the aftermath, so I vividly remember the horror of what we heard unfolding from the football stadium. I pay tribute to those families for their long struggle for justice and to those who have spoken up for them, notably: my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle); my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne); the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May); Lord Wills; and the Mayor of Manchester.

Today is a chance to balance the scales of justice and give those victims the voice that they need and the power to make it heard, but it is a chance that the Government have missed. Their proposals do not go far enough and will be too weak, as they stand, to prevent future cover-ups. The public advocate needs to be a fully independent, permanent figure that is accountable to the families, not a panel of advisers appointed as a signposting service by the Government if they see fit.

It is critical that the public advocate has the full power of data controller, not just the power to make representations, as we heard from the Secretary of State. That means having the power to access all data, communications, documents and other information to torpedo cover-ups before they even happen. We know from the Hillsborough Independent Panel that the existence of such powers would be a massive deterrent to future cover-ups.

Will the Secretary of State reconsider and establish a fully independent public advocate? Will he agree to give it the full power of data controller from the start? That matters immensely because without control over the data that can expose the truth, there can be no transparency, and without transparency, there can be no justice. How many more tragedies will it take to wake the Government up? How many more lives need to be lost?

Labour is committed to real change. In government, we will establish a fully independent public advocate that is accountable to survivors and victims’ families. We will arm it with the power it needs to access documents and data to expose the truth about what went wrong, and, importantly, to stop cover-ups before they happen. That will be part of a Hillsborough law with teeth that will also give victims’ families access to legal aid and impose a duty of candour on public officials. We will do that because we believe that victims must be at the heart of the justice system and that they must have a voice and the power to make it heard, and because we understand that a system that fails to learn from its mistakes is doomed to repeat them.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his partial welcome of the announcement. I listened carefully to what he said. We share, and I personally share with him, the commitment and desire to set up the most credible advocacy for the bereaved, the victims and the families. I am very happy to work with him and hon. Members on both sides of the House on the detail, but I do not accept his characterisation.

The hon. Gentleman said that the IPA was not independent, but in fact it will be decided on the basis of consultations with the victims and the bereaved. That must be right to make sure that we have the right range of experts to deal with the particular circumstances of the tragedy in question. It would act on their behalf; it would not act on behalf of the Government.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to data controller powers. I understand exactly the point he makes, and as I said in my statement, it is important that there will be consultation with the families. The IPA will be able to consult with a putative independent inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman has to recognise that the independent inquiry will have many of those powers itself. Therefore, how would he reconcile that with duplicated powers in the IPA? However, this is something that we should talk about—I know it is an issue that has been raised by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood. We want to get this right, but what we risk is a conflict of functions, which is something we would all want to avoid.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned other measures, such as the duty of candour. That is a broader issue for the Government’s response to the wider Hillsborough report, which is expected in the spring. I know it has been a long time coming, but it is right to deal with those broader issues. Although the IPA is only part of the redress and the accountability, I felt that we were in a position to not just bring forward the policy announcement but in due course, very shortly, to be able to say something about the legislative vehicle. Because this is such an important issue for the bereaved, the victims and the families, I felt it was right to do that now, not wait any longer.

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this statement to the House today and welcome the decision to introduce an independent public advocate, which was of course a commitment in our 2017 manifesto. However, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will understand, I want to ensure that this body will meet the ambition of the commitment that we made in that manifesto. I am happy to work with him to do that.

For today, though, could my right hon. Friend please just go back to two particular issues? One is the question of whether the families, victims and survivors will be able themselves to initiate the independent public advocate, so that they are not relying on the Government to do that for them. Certainly, in the case of Hillsborough, it was the fact that the state and state authorities shut their doors to people that led to the 34 years’ wait for any answers for the families. Also, in line with that, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the IPA is able to compel the provision of information and evidence to the families? He is assuming that an inquiry will always take place, but that might not be the case. It is essential that the families have answers to their perfectly reasonable questions.

I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute again to her for her campaigning and advocacy on this issue. On the right of initiative, the Government will ultimately have to decide the shape of any IPA that is set up. The right of consultation is clearly set out, but of course, one of the challenges will be where different views are expressed as to how the IPA should be configured for a particular inquiry. Ultimately, where there are differences, the Government will have to try to reconcile those, so in committing to an IPA, I think it is right to allow the Government to engage and to allow the victims, the bereaved and the families the power of initiative to call for an IPA and make their representations, but to allow the Government to decide the precise configuration of that IPA.

I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the compulsion of evidence. As I said before, I am very happy to engage with her and with other hon. Members as this policy comes forward. I take her point that an inquiry may not be set up, but where one is set up, the piece that we need to reconcile is making sure that we do not have conflicting powers. But again, I am very happy to work with my right hon. Friend on the detail of this policy and, in due course, on the clauses.

I welcome the fact that the Government want to legislate for a public advocate, five years after the consultation that they undertook closed, but I am very disappointed with the provisions as the Secretary of State has set them out. His proposed public advocate would not be independent, would not be a data controller, and would not be able to act only at the behest of families. It would be directed by the Secretary of State. It would not have the power to appoint independent panels such as the Hillsborough independent panel—but at a much earlier stage following a disaster than the 23 years it took us to get that report out—and it would not have the power to use transparency to get at the truth at an early stage and torpedo the cover-ups that public authorities set about undertaking in the aftermath of disasters. This must be something that the families themselves can initiate and use to get at the truth at an early stage.

The public advocate having the power to compel—to produce documentation and shine the light of transparency on what public authorities have done in the immediate aftermath of a disaster—would stop cover-ups. It would mean people not still having to fight to get at the truth 34 years later. That prize is within our grasp if we set this up right, so does the Secretary of State accept that if he does not beef up his proposals significantly, he will be missing an important opportunity to stop things going wrong for families? For what it is worth, I am perfectly willing to indicate to him in detail quite how those proposals ought to be improved.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. She has worked tirelessly on this issue, and we have very good engagement on it; I am happy for that to continue. I take her point about the power of initiative. The families of the bereaved will have a power of initiative through consultation, but if there are conflicting views—something that I have seen before at first hand—the Government will have to reconcile those views in the last analysis.

Secondly, on the point about data, I am happy to keep listening and working on this issue, but if we have an inquiry that has powers to compel evidence of its own, the problem will be how we reconcile those powers where they are competing in a process. But as I have said, it is important that we bring this policy forward. There will be full scrutiny of it, and as we develop the clauses, I am very happy to keep working with the right hon. Lady.

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), a fellow member of the Justice Committee, for the work she has done, and to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).

The former Prime Minister’s point about the risk of cover-ups by those in authority is an important one. That is why, while I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has said—it is an important step—I hope that when engaging on how best to refine and advance these proposals, he looks again at the Justice Committee’s recommendation that there should be an extension of legal aid availability. Although the situation has already improved, we should be extending non-means-tested legal aid to all cases where there are mass fatalities, or where public bodies are potentially at fault. It is not fair—there is no equality of arms—when those public bodies are represented by teams of lawyers, but the bereaved families have to rely on sometimes getting legal aid and sometimes not, or on pro bono representation. Equality of arms would surely mean representation as a matter of right in those cases.

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I think that this policy will create stronger advocacy on behalf of the bereaved, the victims and the families, and having panels with the right expertise, range and status will go a long way towards getting the answers.

Again, I understand the point about compulsion of evidence. There is not a theological objection to it, certainly as far as I am concerned: it is a question of reconciling competing powers when an inquiry is set up. I will, of course, look at the Justice Committee’s report and recommendations on that issue. In general, of course, inquiries are not supposed to be adversarial, which is why the rules in relation to legal aid are as they are, but we will look at this and work with colleagues in all parts of the House as we introduce these important clauses.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s acknowledgement that we need to legislate for an independent public advocate, but I am sorry to say that today’s announcement is a pale imitation of what Hillsborough families and survivors spent years campaigning on. The Government’s proposal feels like a weak signposting service. It does not have any of the powers that a truly independent public advocate would require—it feels so weak.

For me, the key question is whether this proposal would have stopped the state cover-ups of Hillsborough, the contaminated blood scandal and so many other cover-ups over the ages, and whether it will prevent further cover-ups. Unfortunately, I have to say that the answer is no, so will the Secretary of State instead adopt the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, which is ready to go, and work with us to bring the Hillsborough law—including a fully independent public advocate—into legislation?

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all his efforts. I am afraid I do not accept the characterisation; calling it a signposting service is quite wrong. By the way, the signposting is important, but that is the start, not the end of the role of the IPA. It will be set up as a statutory advocate for all those who have been affected, whether individual victims or on behalf of the community as a whole. As of its own status, it will be impossible to ignore.

On the specific functions beyond those I set out in my statement, I am very happy to keep engaging, but I think that Members need to think about the practicalities, for example with data compulsion, and how we make sure that they can be reconciled. I hope that we will be able to continue working together to make sure that victims and the bereaved, particularly of pre-existing tragedies, such as Hillsborough, but also those in the future feel they are better equipped to get the answers and accountability that they need.

I join other Members in welcoming today’s statement and the important step that it takes, as well as recognising that the legislative process to follow will provide opportunities to strengthen the role and ensure that it delivers what we set out all the way back in 2017, not least trying to ensure that we can safeguard the independence of the IPA from Government. Can I ask my right hon. Friend how “survivors” will be defined? Will it simply be those who have had a life-changing injury, or will it also include those who may have been physically or mentally changed by their experience of a disaster they have been involved with and their need to have support and advice through that inquiry process?

We will work very closely with my hon. and learned Friend and colleagues on the definition. It is important to get that right. It will be an independent advocate once it is established, with the full force of expression and advocacy to get the answers that are required. As I have said before, I am happy to work with colleagues to make sure that we get the right balance and, in particular, to get the IPA to be as effective as possible, whether in relation to an inquiry, statutory or otherwise, or indeed when an inquiry is not established.

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House today and the willingness to legislate in this area. As he has heard already today, nothing less than an independent public advocate acting at the behest of families, not directed by the Secretary of State, and with specific powers, will do. How is he engaging with Members in this place, others who have campaigned on these issues for years and, most important, the Hillsborough families? My constituent Deanna Matthews wrote to me—her uncle Brian was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough—to share her dismay about the lack of engagement with bereaved families ahead of this announcement. Can he tell me how he is engaging with those concerned?

Just to be clear, the advocate will be entirely independent once it is established, so the characterisation is not accurate. In terms of engagement, I am caught a little bit in terms of the detail by the strictures of Mr Speaker in making announcements to this place first, but I wrote to the families, the bereaved and the various groups from Hillsborough, Grenfell and the Manchester bombings, so they have had advance sight. One of the concerns now is the lack of detail, which I could not provide in advance of the statement. I did consult Bishop James Jones, and I saw him over the last week. I am committed to working with all those families—I know Grenfell United and some of those well from my time as Housing Minister—to make sure that we get this right and, above all, get them the most effective means of giving them the transparency and accountability they need.

I warmly welcome this announcement by the Government of the establishment of an independent public advocate, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), with whom I have sat on the Justice Committee and who I know has worked tirelessly on this for many years. I was at university at the time of the Hillsborough disaster in Sheffield, and sadly a friend of mine died in that tragedy, so I know all too well the frustration that the bereaved families have felt ever since. Can my right hon. Friend tell us in more detail how he will ensure that the families of the bereaved of the Hillsborough disaster will be fully involved in the practicalities of the establishment of the advocate?

I am very sorry for my hon. Friend’s loss in relation to Hillsborough. I mentioned some of the engagement there has been. I have offered to meet the families and their groups, in relation to not just Hillsborough but Grenfell and the Manchester Arena bombing. I have always found in these cases, when facing the bereaved or survivors of such dire tragedies, that the most important thing is that they feel they have access, and I am very happy to meet any of them.

I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and I just wonder whether the Secretary of State has actually read previous debates on this issue in Hansard, because 12 years and five months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood and many other Members of this House and I stood here seeking the power to compel the Government to release papers on Hillsborough and to get transparency over that information, yet all this time later, here we are again, still debating who has the power to compel information—in other words, how we as citizens can have the power to get to the truth.

I also want to ask the Secretary of State about extending the duty of candour to public servants so that they have to proactively tell the truth, because without this information we will, as my right hon. Friend has said, always be liable to these cover-ups. I saw it through all of the process with Hillsborough, with Lakanal House, with Grenfell and with the covid inquiry—again and again. I want the Secretary of State to understand this issue properly; it is about the truth. Will he explain what he is going to do on the duty of candour?

I know the hon. Lady cares deeply about this subject. I am familiar with these challenges from my time as Housing Minister, aside from the issue of Hillsborough, which I followed closely.

I totally understand the importance of the duty of candour. I have never said that the IPA is the whole picture; I said that it is a partial but important step that we are taking. It is better to get on with it, because after so long, one thing that I get from the communities, victims and survivors is the need to get on with tangible action—that is the way we will restore confidence. Thy duty of candour was included in the report by Bishop James Jones, and therefore it is right that is part of the Home Office response. As has been set out previously, the Home Office will publish that response in the spring, and of course it will cover that issue.

Will my right hon. Friend explain in a little more detail at what point and under what circumstances the availability of the advocate will be triggered? I see that he or she could be involved in not just inquiries but inquests, so how large a tragedy does it have to be before the victims and the bereaved can call upon his or her services?

I thank the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who raises a very good point. The principle is that the advocate is there for major tragedies. This is a specific institution set up with a range of expertise designed to deal with that. It is not dealing with one loss of life or a smaller event like that. We will need to work closely with Members on the definition to get that right.

Take up my Bill.

There are many good things in the right hon. Lady’s private Member’s Bill, but there is more we can do than just that, and there are some areas where, as she knows from her engagement with me—we talked about this at some length, and I am always happy to continue engaging—we take a different view. The most important thing, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made this point well, is to make the advocate as effective as possible. I am committed to that, and I am committed to working with Members in all parts of the House.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was at the Hillsborough disaster. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), I worked closely with the families, particularly in the lead-up to the decision of the independent panel, so we know quite a bit about the impact on families and what families and victims want. I came to this statement today when I saw its heading, about an independent public advocate, but I am going away not sure what “independent” means, because the Government have not set out clearly how independent it will be. It appears to me, from what the Secretary of State has said, that it will not be totally independent. I am surprised, given that there has been so much discussion in this Chamber, including with my right hon. Friend, that the Secretary of State has come here today and it is still a bit muddled. What does “independent” mean? If it is truly independent, it means that Ministers have no role in it whatever.

To be clear, on the right of initiative, which I know the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has raised and included in her Bill, there could be different views as to its shape or scope, so that is something the Government will ultimately have the last word on. Frankly, what the hon. Gentleman said about the IPA not being independent is wholly wrong. We ought to be clear that, from the point of establishment in relation to a tragedy, the IPA will be wholly and entirely independent to serve the victims, the bereaved and the survivors, and only them. I could not be clearer on the subject.