No 10: Rachel Reeves ‘going nowhere’ and ‘has PM’s full backing’
Rachel Reeves has the prime minister’s “full backing”, Downing Street has said.
Asked why Keir Starmer did not confirm in the Commons that he still had faith in Reeves, the prime minister’s press secretary said: “He has done so repeatedly.
“The chancellor is going nowhere. She has the prime minister’s full backing.
“He has said it plenty of times, he doesn’t need to repeat it every time the leader of the opposition speculates about Labour politicians.
“The chancellor and the prime minister are focused entirely on delivering for working people.
“It’s thanks to the chancellor’s management of the economy that we managed to restore stability, which has led to four interest rate cuts, wages rising faster than inflation and she recently delivered a spending review that invested in Britain’s national renewal.”
Asked whether the prime minister still had confidence in work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall, the press secretary said: “Yes.”
Key events
Hancock went on:
We were trying to do everything that we possibly could, we were in bleak circumstances.
Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC highlighted anonymous evidence given to the inquiry, saying:
One person in particular said he [Matt Hancock] blatantly lied about the situation with care homes, there was no blanket of protection. We were left to sail our own ships. He wasn’t heartfelt. He had no understanding or appreciation of the challenges care homes face, pandemic or not, it felt like we were the sacrifice, a cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society.
Hancock said it was “not helpful” for the inquiry to “exchange brickbats”, but went on:
I’ve been through everything that we did as a department, a big team effort, and we were all pulling as hard as we possibly could to save lives – that’s what I meant by saying that we tried to throw a protective ring around.
Of course, it wasn’t perfect. It was impossible – it was an unprecedented pandemic, and the context was exceptionally difficult.
What I care about is the substance of what we did, the protections that we put in place, and most importantly, what we can do in the future to ensure that the options available are better than they were last time.
Pressed further, Hancock said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time, reports the PA news agency.
The high court ruled in 2022 that government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were “unlawful”. While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients “to preserve the capacity of the NHS”, they found it was “irrational” for the government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission.
Asked about 17 March 2020 when NHS bosses were instructed to begin the discharge process, Hancock said officials were “pushing very hard” to get more PPE into care homes. He said not advising care homes to isolate returning residents without symptoms was a “mistake”, but it was in line with clinical guidance at the time.
In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Hancock admitted the protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue.
At a Downing Street press conference on 15 May 2020, Hancock said:
Right from the start, we’ve tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.
Hancock told the inquiry:
I would stress in that piece of rhetoric, what I said is that we had ‘tried’ – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted.
He added:
The protection, what at the time, was clearly not as much as we would have liked, but the alternatives were even worse.
We were trying to put as much protection in place as possible.
All I can do is take you back to the actual decisions and the resources that we had at that moment.
Discharging patients to care homes in early Covid pandemic was ‘least-worst decision’, Hancock tells inquiry
Discharging patients from hospitals to care homes in the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic was “the least-worst decision” at the time, former health secretary Matt Hancock has said, reports the PA news agency.
Bereaved people whose loved ones died in care homes have urged truth and accountability from those appearing before the UK Covid-19 inquiry, as its focus for the next month falls on the care sector.
The inquiry has previously heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a “generational slaughter within care homes”.
Appearing before the inquiry on Wednesday, Hancock acknowledged the discharge policy was an “incredibly contentious issue”, but he added:
Nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.
When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in an effort to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April.
This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus.
Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times.
Returning for a full-day session to face questions specifically about the care sector, he said the hospital discharge policy had been a government decision but had been “driven” by then-NHS chief executive Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens.
Hancock said:
It was formally a government decision. It was signed off by the prime minister. It was really driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, but it was widely discussed.
The inquiry heard Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had “insisted” on the policy, and while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary.
He said it was an “incredibly contentious issue” but added that “nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives”.
He said there were no good options, adding:
It’s the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.
Heather Stewart
The speculation about Rachel Reeves’s future, sparked by her demeanour at prime minister’s questions and Keir Starmer’s apparent refusal to back her, spooked government bond markets.
Jittery investors dumped gilts – UK government bonds – as the idea caught hold that Reeves didn’t have the prime minister’s full confidence. The yield on ten year gilts was up 0.2 percentage points on the day – on course for the biggest one day move since Liz Truss’s mini-budget.
Kathleen Brooks, research director at City broker XTB, said:
The sharp rise in bond yields happened during PMQs … the prospect of political turmoil is causing bond yields to rise. The market is pricing in the possibility of a replacement chancellor with a more left-leaning agenda.
Starmer’s press secretary subsequently insisted Reeves had the prime minister’s full backing.
Downing Street said Keir Starmer would “plough on” with his “very busy agenda” when asked if the prime minister was planning for a course correction following the welfare vote.
Asked whether Starmer would be changing anything about the way he operates after the fallout, a Number 10 spokesman said: “The prime minister is fully focused on the job at hand.
“You’ve heard… the number of achievements this government has secured in its first year in office. You can expect him to plough on with the very busy agenda.”
The Tories have said “we need to know what’s going on” with Rachel Reeves after the chancellor was seen visibly upset during Prime Minister’s Questions, which a spokesman has since said related to a personal matter.
Kemi Badenoch’s spokesman said “personal matter doesn’t really clear it up” and “you normally tell people what the personal matter is”.
Asked whether politicians should disclose all personal matters in their lives regardless of what they are, he said: “That’s an absurd question.”
He added: “I’m not going to speculate… I think we should find out what’s going on.”
Downing Street also said that Keir Starmer “absolutely” has confidence in his own judgment.
Asked the question by reporters, the prime minister’s press secretary said: “Yes absolutely. This is a prime minister who in the opposition picked the Labour party off the floor, turned it around and secured the mandate that we received last year.
“This is a prime minister who… is taking a phased approach to government. The first phase is fixing the foundations, including the £22 billion black hole the Tories left, invested record amounts in the NHS and delivered double the amount of appointments that we committed to in the election, frozen fuel duty… and now we’re delivering fairness and security through our plan for change.”
No 10: Rachel Reeves ‘going nowhere’ and ‘has PM’s full backing’
Rachel Reeves has the prime minister’s “full backing”, Downing Street has said.
Asked why Keir Starmer did not confirm in the Commons that he still had faith in Reeves, the prime minister’s press secretary said: “He has done so repeatedly.
“The chancellor is going nowhere. She has the prime minister’s full backing.
“He has said it plenty of times, he doesn’t need to repeat it every time the leader of the opposition speculates about Labour politicians.
“The chancellor and the prime minister are focused entirely on delivering for working people.
“It’s thanks to the chancellor’s management of the economy that we managed to restore stability, which has led to four interest rate cuts, wages rising faster than inflation and she recently delivered a spending review that invested in Britain’s national renewal.”
Asked whether the prime minister still had confidence in work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall, the press secretary said: “Yes.”
However, Labour MP Kim Johnson accused the government of planning to table a bill that is “watered down” and “doesn’t deserve to be named Hillsborough Law”.
The Liverpool Riverside MP said: “The prime minister visited my constituency in 2022 and told families, and I quote, ‘One of my first acts will be to put the Hillsborough Law on the statute book’, repeated the same promise at conference last year that the Bill would be published at the anniversary in April. That didn’t happen.
“However, the government are now planning to table a watered-down version that doesn’t deserve to be named Hillsborough Law.
“After PMQs, the member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) will introduce the real Hillsborough Law. So can the prime minister finally honour his promise and back the law in full? If not, why not?”
Responding, Keir Starmer said: “I’m grateful to her for raising this and remember well the visit that we had. This is a really serious issue, it is important that we get it right. I am fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough Law, including a legal duty of candor for public servants and criminal sanctions for those that refuse to comply.
“It is important we get it right. I have been personally engaging with some of the founders on this because I’ve been involved and seen firsthand what they’ve been through for over 10 years. I first met them when I was a director of public prosecution.
“We will bring this forward, I just want to take the time to get it right and then put it before the House.”
Keir Starmer has confirmed that his Hillsborough law will include a legal duty of candor amid fears the government is “watering down” its proposals.
Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey challenged Starmer in prime minister’s questions, saying:
From Hillsborough to Grenfell, Primodos to Horizon, the contaminated blood scandal to nuclear test veterans, the bereaved and survivors of some of our country’s most appalling scandals have come together to call for a legal duty of candour and the secondary duty needed to make it practical and effective for investigations and inquiries.
Now they’re frightened the government is watering down these proposals to such an extent that they would be toothless.
So, after months of delay, can the prime minister reassure campaigners that his Hillsborough law will include a real legal duty of candour, as he promised?
Responding, Starmer said:
Yes, it will. And as he may know, I’ve known some of the families from Hillsborough for many years now.
I met them over a decade ago and know exactly what they have been through, and various other groups that have suffered similar injustices with similar follow up, which is an additional injustice on top of the original injustice.
And that’s why we will bring forward a Hillsborough law. It’s a commitment I’ve made. I have been talking to families in recent weeks personally myself to make sure that we get this right and it is important we get it right, but it will have a legal duty.
Keir Starmer failed to say whether he has “changed his mind” on the government’s plans for reform of personal independence payments (Pip) after a question from Liberal Democrat Ed Davey.
During PMQs Davey said:
Yesterday, the government was asking this house to vote for a law that would mean someone with a condition like Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis would qualify for a personal independence payment (Pip) today, but someone diagnosed with the same condition with very same symptoms in a few months time would not.
We all know that the cost of welfare needs to come down, but that was not a fair way to do it. Until he lost control yesterday, the prime minister was arguing for that approach. Has he changed his mind on this or not?
Responding, Starmer said:
The Stephen Timms review will take place, a very important review to look into this issue.
But what we did do last night was end mandatory reassessments for those with severe disabilities. I thought that he and his party cared about things like that. It’s the right thing to do, and they voted against it.
We rebalanced Universal Credit, long overdue. I think he believes that, but what did he do last night? He voted against it. We set out a pathway to reform, something he argues for every week, but what did he do when he had the chance? He voted against it.
Davey replied:
The house and his backbenches will note that he didn’t answer my question.
PMQs has now ended. The PA news agency reports that Labour minister Ellie Reeves appeared to be holding her sister’s hand as she left the chamber on Wednesday, after chancellor Rachel Reeves appeared to be crying during PMQs.
During PMQs (which has now ended), Adrian Ramsay asked whether the government would scrap the two-child benefit cap after the welfare bill climbdown.
Starmer replied:
I don’t think I’ll be listening to him or his party.
Labour’s first year in government has been labelled “mistake after mistake” by Badenoch.
She said:
The fact is his own MPs are saying this government is, and I quote, incoherent and shambolic, that’s Liverpool Wavertree [Paula Barker] that said that. I could go on, and on, but the fact is it’s been mistake, after mistake after mistake. There is no plan to get people into work, there is no plan to cut the welfare budget, there is no strategy, there is just a series of humiliating U-turns like winter fuel, like grooming gangs.
What’s really shocking is that every other party in this House voted for even more welfare spending yesterday. Yes, those MPs behind him, and the Lib Dems, and Reform. The Conservative party believes that this country needs to live within its means.
We know what we believe, but this is a prime minister who has U-turned on everything he has done in office, including his own speeches. Because he doesn’t know what he believes. With left-wing Labour MPs now running the government, isn’t it working people who will now pay the price?
Starmer replied, recalling a list of “promises made, and promises delivered”, including extra NHS appointments, improving workers’ rights, increases to the minimum wage, extending free breakfast clubs, creating GB energy and stopping bonuses for water bosses.
He said:
We’re only getting started, the chancellor has led on all these issues and we’re grateful to her for it.
Starmer fails to guarantee chancellor’s future
Starmer failed to repeat his promise on whether Rachel Reeves will stay as chancellor until the next election, as Badenoch said she was a “human shield” for the prime minister’s “incompetence”.
Badenoch said:
This man has forgotten that his welfare bill was there to plug a black hole created by the chancellor. Instead they’re creating new ones. They’re creating new ones.
[Rachel Reeves] is pointing at me, she looks absolutely miserable. Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?
Starmer replied:
[Kemi Badenoch] certainly won’t. I have to say, I’m always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.
She talks about the black hole, they left a £22bn black hole in our economy and we’re clearing it up, and I’m really proud that in the first year of a Labour government, we got free school meals, breakfast clubs, childcare, got £15bn invested in transport in the north and the Midlands.
We’re cutting regulation, planning and infrastructure is pounding forward, building 1.5m homes, the biggest investment in social and affordable housing, and of course the three trade deals.
Badenoch replied:
How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.
Harriet Cross asks when it will be farmer’s turn for a U-turn on the famer’s inheritance tax?
Starmer replies by saying the Labour government had the most significant funding for farmers in the latest budget.
Starmer refuses to rule out tax rises to fund U-turn on welfare bill
Starmer declined to rule out autumn tax rises from the despatch box.
Badenoch told the Commons:
He’s got some brass neck. Has he read the papers this morning?
That bill will achieve nothing. It is a pointless waste of time and is absolute proof that he doesn’t have a plan.
Let me tell the house what’s going to happen: in November, the chancellor [Rachel Reeves] is going to put up our taxes to pay for his incompetence. We on this side of the house know that you can’t tax your way to growth, but people out there are frightened.
Badenoch later asked:
Can he reassure them by ruling out tax rises in the autumn budget?
Starmer replied:
She knows that no prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future. That isn’t what they did, and it isn’t what we do, and she knows it.
He accused the Tories of having presided over “stagnation, and that is what caused the problems”.
Responding, Keir Starmer told the Commons:
I’ll tell them what they did to the welfare system – they broke it. And it’s the same as the NHS. What did they do? They broke it. Same as the economy, what did they do?
Labour MPs chimed in as the prime minister continued:
They broke it.
Starmer continued:
They broke everything that they touched, and now she describes the broken system that we are trying to fix. And what did she do?
She voted against fixing the system that they broke. And I’ll tell you and spell that out, they voted last night for the system that is keeping one million young people not learning or earning, that is a disgrace of their system.
They voted for a system where we have three million people out of work on ill health, and they voted for that system.
Kemi Badenoch has asked whether prime minister Keir Starmer is “too weak to get anything done”.
The Conservative leader told the Commons:
I’ll tell him what we did on welfare.
When Labour MPs laughed, she added:
Why are they laughing? They don’t know. My party delivered the biggest reform of welfare in government. We got record numbers of people into work including millions of disabled people, and we cut the deficit every year until Covid.
Badenoch continued:
What he forgets is that since the election, since he became prime minister, an additional 1,000 people a day are signing on to incapacity benefits. That is 50% more than under us.
And astonishingly, because of the mess they made yesterday, because there’re no more savings, sickness benefits alone – alone – are set to rise to £100bn on his watch. He cannot reduce that now.
Badenoch described the universal credit and personal independence payment bill as being “completely gutted” and asked:
He said that he would take the difficult decisions, but isn’t the reality that he is too weak to get anything done?
