Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to pick up from where the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, left off. We need to occasionally remind ourselves of the history of this. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and thank the various campaign groups that continue to persevere for justice and compensation and to ensure that we are kept informed about the current situation.

I particularly thank Colette Wintle and Carol Grayson for their briefing and their amazing campaigning over the years. They reminded us that the history of this started in 1991 with the HIV litigation, when the Conservative Government blocked compensation. In 2003, the Skipton Fund was set up, but that was blocked by the Labour Government. In 2009 and 2010 there were other incidents that were also blocked by that Government. In 2012, the coalition Government also blocked compensation, delaying things for a further decade. This year, given that Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report made it absolutely clear that compensation should be set up and run from now, it is extraordinary to have a three-page Statement, in which the first page says all the right things but the second and third pages then put it into the long grass.

It is good news about Clause 40 in the Victims and Prisoners Bill. It had its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House yesterday and, had we heard the details of the Statement before that, some of us might have changed our speeches. It is almost as if Ministers have not yet seen Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation on 5 April. To remind your Lordships’ House, he said:

“I recommend that a compensation scheme should be set up now and it should begin work this year”.


The Statement says that the Government will work through everything before starting the scheme. Can the Minister say on what grounds they are going specifically against Sir Brian’s recommendation that the scheme should start immediately? Time is not on the side of the victims or their families.

From these Benches, we too welcome the proposals for a bespoke psychological service for people infected by and affected by the infected blood products. But can I ask the Minister if there is new funding for this? There has to be funding outside the existing mental health budgets, which are severely under strain. If there is not, it will just put further pressure on an overwhelmed service and lead to further distress for people who believe that it will be available to help them when it is not. Even worse, others who have been waiting years for urgent mental health services will find that they cannot get them.

It is important because, as the Factor 8 scandal campaign has said, in a recent case of a young man whose father, mother and sister all died of AIDS when he was three years old, he has received nothing. He gets no ongoing support and struggles deeply with his mental health. Factor 8 says that it is “unimaginable” that his case is not

“described as ‘one of those most severely impacted’”.

There is also reference to setting up a group of experts. Who is appointing these experts? It would be normal for the chair of the compensation panel to choose their experts. There would usually be two panels —one would be medical advisers and one would be legal advisers. There is, of course, the important element of making sure that there is the voice of the people affected. Can the Minister say whether this is being done by the Government in advance of the panel being set up?

It would really good if we could have some speeding up of this process. There is no time, as everyone has said—but we have been saying this for close to 30 years, and it needs to be actioned now.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments about cross-party support because, after all, this dreadful scandal dates back, I think, 40 years and has involved many different Governments. She is also right that we have to recognise what has gone before us and do the right thing. It has been an awful scandal and, even more, it has left a stigma—particularly in the days before HIV and AIDS were properly understood—on all those involved. She is right to say that the amendment to the victims Bill has helped to focus minds on this issue.

Obviously, the Government recognise the strength of feeling across the House and the importance of what this amendment seeks to achieve. We are working through the implications as drafted and considering the question of primary legislation and, having this amendment, what is the right vehicle.

As I said, the inquiry’s final report is expected in March 2024. There was, I suppose, a small ray of light in the last day or two, as the inquiry said it would announce the date of its report on 17 January. The Government have already made it clear that, within 25 sitting days following the publication of that report, we will provide a full response to Parliament with an Oral Statement on the next steps. That gives us a better timetable than we have had before. I understand, of course, the points made about speed, and I look forward to being able to fill in on them.

I reiterate the news about the bespoke psychological service for people infected and affected by infected blood products and the appointment—I hope, imminently —of clinical leader and social care experts. The role of social care experts will be to advise on technical issues that require a high level of relevant knowledge in order to make informed choices in responding to the inquiry’s eventual recommendations on compensation—things such as tariff schedules. These experts will be independent and will be appointed solely to advise on technical issues. Our feeling is that it is right to get on and make those appointments: the Minister for the Cabinet Office was very clear about that. That probably means that it is not possible to do the chair and the experts at the same time. He made it clear that that process was ongoing, would be communicated early in the new year and that he was working, as it were, right over Christmas on this important issue.

In relation to the psychological support service in England, I understand the concerns that the service cannot go live until early summer 2024. The reason for that is that we need time to recruit suitably experienced and qualified staff and for all the necessary arrangements to be made for them to start seeing patients. What is good about the scheme is that access is anticipated to be primarily by people referring themselves. There may be onward referrals from GPs and hospitals, but people will not be reliant on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was right to run through the history of this again and remind us of that and of individual cases. I am the process of reading Caroline Wheeler’s book on this blood scandal in preparation for today and have been shocked by the individual cases. I commend that, and think it has been influential in this whole matter. We have made a Statement because we promised to do one before Christmas and, as I have said, the Minister for the Cabinet Office is working relentlessly on moving these schemes forward so that we are in the best possible stage of readiness for the final report when it emerges.

Minister for Disabled People

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government why the status of the Minister for disabled people was downgraded from that of Minister of State to that of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

All Ministers speak with the authority of the Government, and it is for the Prime Minister to decide how responsibility is allocated. The role of Minister for Disabled People has been undertaken at both Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State level in the past. The new Minister has been at the Department for Work and Pensions since 2019 and has the ability to get things done and extensive experience of the issues that disabled people face.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, disabled people are horrified by the Prime Minister’s decision. DWP estimates that 16 million people have a disability— that is one in four—and they face multiple barriers in their lives beyond DWP. It is harder to get a job— 29 percentage points less—their financial position is much worse, they have to spend much more on energy, and other barriers remain for health, education and transport. The former role of the Minister of State for Disabled People could focus on influencing change but the new PUS is covering a large portfolio including housing benefit, the military covenant and youth. Why have this Government once again downgraded support for disabled people?

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by sharing my appreciation for the number of incisive contributions we have heard in the course of this short debate. It is always a pleasure to debate these things here. Of course, they have now been reviewed in the other place, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, and there was a long discussion, including a long Committee stage attended by my friend in the other place Alex Burghart. I particularly thank noble Lords for all the work that has gone into this across the House, including these important provisions.

My noble friend Lord Lansley is correct that the objective in Clause 12 applies to cover procurement. The NPPS clause allows an NPPS to cover all procurement, but in practice its scope will be determined by the contents of the statement. In my opening remarks I explained at some length the position on the coverage of the NHS. I will come back to one or two of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for all that she said. Concerning principles that need to be considered by Ministers in preparing the NPPS, these principles are already covered through other commitments and legislation, as I have already set out. The amendment is therefore not necessary, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said. In addition, our fundamental view is that the Government of the day should not be constrained by the Bill in their ability to prescribe something more specific. They are free to do so—and I think this is the charm of the Bill—through the NPPS rather than through primary legislation. The Bill is about clarity and simplicity, not layering rules on rules.

To understand how it works in practice, I refer my noble friend Lord Lansley—I think I have already discussed this with him—to the current non-statutory NPPS, which covers innovation and social value. Attempting to drive innovation, which I am as keen on as he is, in every single procurement will not always be relevant or proportionate. Our Bill drives innovation through, for example, our new competitive flexible procedure, pre-market engagement and our duty for contracting authorities to have regard to reducing barriers for SMEs—which will also benefit social enterprises, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to. Future NPPSs will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consulted on as appropriate.

The consideration of environmental targets and objectives relating to social value in preparing the NPPS, and the other principles set out in this amendment, are duplicative and would render the Bill more complex and confusing for contracting authorities and suppliers. Singling out specific objectives for Ministers to consider will create the impression that they trump others, which could unduly constrain flexibility for a Government to set priorities in future, which they will do through the NPPS. This is a principle seen in other legislation, where you have framing legislation and then statutory guidance.

Finally, regarding environmental considerations—as highlighted in discussions during the REUL Bill debates, although perhaps I should not remind noble Lords of those as they took a long time—Ministers will now be under a legal duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy, including the development of policies in accordance with the Bill.

On the NHS amendments championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I am grateful for the meetings that we have had but I believe that they stem from a confusion. NHS bodies are contracting authorities and therefore already covered by the Bill; we had a good conversation about mixed contracts and so on, which I think was helpful to us both. It would be inappropriate to remove the power to make the provider selection regime regulations, especially given the benefits that they will bring to patients.

In response to a question about the definition of healthcare services, the scope of services in the PSR has been consulted on and will be further supported by reference to a list of common procurement vocabulary codes, set out clearly in the PSR regulations. An indicative list of those codes was included in DHSC’s recent consultation on the PSR.

The noble Baroness made a point about conflicts of interest. Our Bill strengthens existing legal duties on conflicts of interest and embeds greater transparency throughout the commercial life cycle. This has been welcomed and, I think, is important. Furthermore, the provider selection regime regulations will clearly set out provisions for the effective management of conflicts of interest. The PSR is designed to ensure transparency across all procurement decisions to which it applies, including how the decisions were made. This transparency will help ensure that there is proper scrutiny and accountability of decisions to award contracts for healthcare services.

Finally, an independently chaired panel will provide expert review and advice concerning decisions made under the PSR, helping to ensure that procurement processes are transparent, fair and proportionate. I very much hope that that additional information about our plans for the PSR will enable this debate about just how these two regimes, both of which have been discussed constructively and at length in this House, fit together, and that noble Lords feel able to support the government amendments and withdraw the amendments that they have put forward.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this brief debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for at least agreeing with the principle, even if she cannot support me in the Division Lobby, because it is really important.

For all the reasons that the Minister outlined, we are where we are. When we were working on the Health and Care Bill, it was absolutely evident that the secondary legislation changes would be outlined quickly thereafter—I am looking at others who were in the Chamber at the same time—and agreed by last autumn. We are now 17 months on and there is no sight of them at all.

The Minister outlined the NHS provider selection scheme and all its arrangements. That it is not looking for a culture change worries me most. In my earlier speech I gave examples of the behaviour of three senior managers at three CCGs, which the public would not have known about if the losing company had not gone to the Technology and Construction Court. This revealed that it is all too easy, where the culture is poor, for people to believe that the rules are being followed when they are not.

I appreciate that we have a point of difference on this, but on our Benches we believe that there is much benefit in this Procurement Bill and do not understand why the NHS is excluded. It is perfectly possible to include some special arrangements for it, but nothing has happened since the Health and Care Act was enacted. At the moment, nothing we are hearing from the NHS is about that culture change. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Covid-19 Inquiry: Judicial Review

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his wise advice and the background. We miss him on the Front Bench, and it is good that he has come to talk to us today. As evidence of his point, materials are carefully considered. One of the issues under debate was the Sarah Everard processes. In this case, a message that appeared unconnected to Covid was initially redacted, but it was then identified as potentially relevant as part of the additional counsel review, which the noble Lord referred to, so the Cabinet Office then provided it to the inquiry proactively. A process is going on, and a large team is working away at this. All along, our legal team in the Cabinet Office looking after the inquiry has tried to agree on sensible arrangements. We have entered a JR, but we remain hopeful and willing to agree the best way forward with the inquiry, if that is possible.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, one of the strengths of a judge-led public inquiry is that it is able to look at everything, including the emerging wider context and competing pressures facing those who have to come to some very difficult decisions. Inquiries such as the Leveson inquiry, that on Hillsborough and, more recently, IICSA have all had confidential information and have had to decide what to redact. I was peripherally involved in the latter of those as a witness, and it was somewhat nerve-racking to hand over personal information, but I was utterly confident that the decisions would be made in the interests of the inquiry.

As the health spokesperson on the Front Bench during Covid and just before it first struck in January and February 2020, I note that there are a large number of issues, including the Government disbanding the pandemic preparedness group to leave more space for Brexit. NERVTAG and SAGE minutes between January and February changed very quickly, and it is illuminating to read them. But it was concerning to read that the Prime Minister missed the first five COBRA dates, and there were reports that he was not working on weekends during that early period. In addition to those reasons, some of what the inquiry needs to look at includes why the UK did not follow the World Health Organization guidance on testing and protection from the start, and why the UK Government sent PPE to China just at the point that the experts were saying that our health people needed it. We had health staff in bin bags because we did not have any PPE in this country.

For all these reasons, I ask the Minister whether she believes that the inquiry really needs to see the detail of that correspondence. It may look irrelevant from the outside, but, in terms of emerging contexts and competing decisions, it becomes vital to what happened and whether people lived or died.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The Government set up the inquiry for exactly the sorts of reasons that the noble Baroness outlined. These questions need to be answered. As I said, the Government are making available all relevant information—anything related to Covid or decisions about it is being made available. The judicial review is on a narrow technical point about unambiguously irrelevant items, and I assure the noble Baroness that the Government seek to ensure that the inquiry and its chair have all the information and access to witnesses that they need, to ensure that the very important questions that the chair is asking are answered. That is why we are having an inquiry. Of course, we want it to get on, and we look forward to learning the lessons as soon as possible.

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

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 23rd January 2023 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 6 December. I think we are all agreed on the importance of improving UK resilience, and the recently published resilience framework illustrates the need for clear responsibilities in order to drive planning activity across the risk life cycle.

This instrument will do exactly that by creating the legal basis for improved co-operation, information sharing and integration between the Meteorological Office and the Coal Authority and the wider list of categorised organisations operating at the local level across the UK. It will deliver these important changes by making both organisations category 2 responders as defined under the Civil Contingencies Act, in turn bolstering the planning activities conducted by local resilience forums in England—a further commitment of the new resilience framework.

This will ensure that these bodies are well integrated within wider emergency planning frameworks and able to collaborate in the development of localised risk assessments and to contribute information and expertise to support local resilience forums in planning for and responding to emergencies. Both organisations hold information and experience that is integral to the process of civil protection. The Meteorological Office is able to support effective management of severe weather risks, and the Coal Authority is positioned to ensure that due consideration is given to the unique risks presented by our industrial heritage.

I was amazed by this: approximately 25% of property across the UK is located on the coalfield, and the Coal Authority responds to a wide range of incidents, including, but not limited to, subsidence, sudden ground collapses, emissions of water or gas and coal tip slips, as well as metal mine pollution incidents, for which it also has responsibility. As we all know, extreme weather and flooding, which we have increasingly experienced, often heighten the likelihood of risks materialising in these areas.

The Civil Contingencies Act, also known as the CCA, was introduced in 2004 following a review of emergency planning arrangements as a result of the fuel crisis and severe flooding in 2000, as well as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The Act establishes a framework for civil protection in the UK. It imposes a clear set of roles and responsibilities on organisations with a role to play in preparing for and responding to emergencies.

Category 1 responders are organisations that collectively form the core of local emergency preparedness and response. These include emergency services, local authorities, health bodies, HM Coastguard and government agencies. Category 1 responders are subject to the full set of statutory civil protection duties, including assessing risks to inform contingency planning, warning and informing the public, and putting in place business continuity arrangements.

Category 2 organisations, which include the Health and Safety Executive and utilities and transport operators, are co-operating bodies and, although less likely to be involved in the heart of planning work, are heavily involved in incidents that affect their own sector. Category 2 responders have a statutory duty to co-operate and share relevant information with other category 1 and 2 responders. The Act and regulations made under the CCA create the basis for these organisations to collaborate through local resilience forums where all responders can come together to ensure effective multiagency emergency preparation and response.

Regulations made under the CCA also place a duty on responders to help co-ordinate risk assessment at their local level through the production of the community risk register, which ensures that local resilience forum members hold a consistent understanding of the hazards and threats across their area.

The CCA is reviewed every five years. The most recent post-implementation review was laid before the House in March 2022 and proposed the categorisation of the Met Office and the Coal Authority as one of its key recommendations. The Met Office and Coal Authority perform important functions in preparing for, and responding to, risks associated with extreme weather events and the coal-mining legacy. Recent examples include several heatwaves in 2022, a number of floods in recent weeks and, in the past few days, a sinkhole that has, sadly, opened up in Caerphilly. The two organisations have significant expertise and technical knowledge in their respective fields and provide critical support, such as severe weather warnings, hazard assessments, training and response planning.

While these organisations already work closely with local partners, our consultation and engagement indicated that, without their integration within the legal framework, this was taking place in an inconsistent or ad hoc way. Categorising these organisations will ensure that they are able to share information and co-operate with local resilience forums across the UK in a more regulated and structured way. This will ultimately improve the preparedness of local partnerships to respond to incidents related to coal mines or severe weather and strengthen their ability to protect the public and save lives.

This instrument is being made using powers set out in Section 13(1) of the Civil Contingencies Act, which allows a Minister of the Crown to amend the list of categorised responders. It will add the Meteorological Office and the Coal Authority to the list of responders under the Act. Importantly, these amendments do not add significant financial burdens to the Meteorological Office or the Coal Authority as these organisations are already equipped to perform these additional duties under their current budgets, with a de minimis impact assessment having been completed in December 2022.

These provisions will be implemented across the UK, and we have consulted officials from the devolved Administrations throughout the process. We also formally notified each Administration via ministerial letters of our intention to lay this instrument. Noble Lords will be glad to hear that all devolved Administrations were supportive of the inclusion of these agencies as categorised responders for the whole United Kingdom. I therefore thank each Administration for their engagement and collaboration. I hope that colleagues today will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee and beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her helpful introduction to this statutory instrument. It is an excellent proposal to include the coal providers and the meteorological service as category 2 responders. The actual legislation is barely half a page. The rest of the documentation, both the Explanatory Memorandum and the evidence base, are extremely helpful in explaining how the emergency provision is supposed to operate in practice and the difference between the responsibilities of a category 1 and category 2 responder.

I want to raise an issue about how well that is working in practice—and I declare an interest that my grand-daughters were born very prematurely and very small and, this time five years ago, the smallest of them had been allowed home from hospital only after the first eight months of her life, with a ventilator to operate when she was asleep at night and during the day. Nobody was allowed to look after her who had not been trained by the hospital because, if the ventilator failed, there would obviously be very serious consequences. They also provided a heart monitor. At the time, my son and daughter-in-law were told to let their utility supplier know that they required emergency support in the event of a power cut. There was one such power cut—and, when you have a sick baby home from hospital for the first time, you are watching the minutes ticking by and knowing that the battery on your child’s ventilator and heart alarm is going to run down fairly swiftly.

My son rang the utility emergency number, which confirmed that they were on the register, that it was only their estate in south London that had gone out and that, in due course, a generator would be brought to them. An hour and a half later, the story was still the same. My son had to take the decision to remove my granddaughter and all her kit—which filled the car—and bring her to us, where we did have power and were able to ensure that she was safe. I therefore have a particular interest in the emergency supply of electricity, not just for vulnerable people but for those whose lives depend on it.

When there was concern in the autumn about possible blackouts this year, no matter how unlikely, to make sure that the arrangements under the CCA would work for this small group of people, children and adults who have to rely on literally life-saving equipment to keep them alive I asked Energy Ministers and Health Ministers about the registers, which are still held by the utility providers, which are category 2 providers. Disabled groups have also been asking about them. Grant Shapps gave evidence at a BEIS Select Committee meeting that arrangements are there but these individuals need to make emergency arrangements for themselves, which has not been the case in the past and which I found quite extraordinary. For clarity, the register is called the priority services register. That is the one for all vulnerable customers, but it does not distinguish the level of emergency need—and therein lies the problem. In the event of mass power cuts, it is clearly impractical for any energy supplier to provide electricity generators to lots of people at short notice, but asking residents who fall into that category to make that provision for themselves is a further problem.

What has become more worrying, and the reason why I raise this now, is that utility suppliers are telling these individuals that they need to talk to their doctors, who have absolutely no role in this at all. It is clear to many people that the utility suppliers do not understand their role in managing the register. I have also talked to two directors of public health, who are key players on any health issues in local resilience forums and have a particular role in a civil contingency situation, such as a major power cut. They say that they cannot get the right information from the energy suppliers about who it is who needs that extra care. All the focus is on the vulnerable elderly who might get cold. The particular group of people that I refer to seems to fall through the net.

Can the Minister investigate for me how this is meant to work and confirm whether the Secretary of State for BEIS was correct in his assertion in the autumn that the responsibility now lies with the individuals concerned—which seems extraordinary? Can she also confirm whether it is clear to local resilience forums what they should be doing and where they should get their information from regarding this particular group of people?

To end on a happier note: my granddaughter no longer uses a ventilator at night—it took three years—and I must say that all the support that she has had from everyone has been brilliant. But we are a family who really understand the consequences of a major power cut and how life-threatening that can be for a small but very vulnerable group of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for her generous response. When she writes to me—perhaps we might even be able to meet on this—could she draw a distinction between the general category of vulnerable people and those who are highly impacted by whatever the emergency is? In the case I gave it was utilities.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Indeed. The noble Baroness made it very clear in her contribution that that was exactly the problem: vulnerability comes in different clothing and different categories. We should look at that as part of our resilience work; otherwise, there will be repeated disappointments of the kind she helpfully brought to the attention of the Committee.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The interim payment is confined to those Sir Robert suggested it should be paid to—those who were infected. There was an ongoing scheme over a number of years to make payments to those affected—there were around 4,000 of them, so we knew who they were—and their bereaved partners. It was limited, as you will see if you look at Sir Robert’s report, because he felt that the complexities of deciding who else should receive compensation were too difficult, and that we should therefore come back to the wider group when we had Sir Brian’s report.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I think the whole House is grateful to the Minister for accepting that there have been too many long delays on this over the years. On the third page of the Statement, there is a reference to possible delays in working with the devolved Administrations. I gently point out that, this year, we have had two Bills going through your Lordships’ House where work was done speedily with the devolved Administrations. The Minister knows one of them very well—the Procurement Bill—but there was also the Health and Care Bill, where Members of your Lordships’ House were not allowed to lay amendments because of pre-agreement with the devolved Administrations. So it is certainly possible to work at pace. If the spirit of the Government is willing to move this forward, will they please prioritise these sorts of discussions, including with the devolved Administrations, to overcome the hurdles?

I worked with a theatre group that performed at Treloar School every summer. Of about 89 haemophiliac children who were at the school in the 1970s and 1980s, only a quarter are still alive, and of course, some of them are dying. They are psychologically scarred, not least because they were children away from home and had no say in the treatment that they were given, which everyone believed was a miracle cure. Factor 8 was going to be the change of life for haemophiliacs. Instead, for many of them it has become death.

I echo the questions raised by other noble Lords. It would be helpful for the Government to confirm a date by which they will come back with clear proposals. Generous though it is, this Statement just pushes things further into the long grass. To paraphrase another well-known saying, compensation delayed is compensation denied. In this case, it is also about justice being delayed and justice being denied.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those comments, which underline the scale, gravity and dreadful consequences of this. It is very important that we dwell on that point. It is important to those who have been affected that they understand our sympathy as well.

Obviously, we hope and expect to get the report next summer. We will then move as fast as we can. It is clear that those of us now working in the Cabinet Office are giving this a very high degree of commitment. I assure the noble Baroness that we are also trying to work closely with the devolved Administrations. She knows that I mean it because we worked together on the Procurement Bill. It will be a UK-wide scheme, which is a good thing, but she will know there were disparities in the support scheme payments that were made. The DHSC acted to remedy that in a parity exercise, ensuring that Northern Ireland was aligned. That is an example of how we have been working with the devolved Administrations. When I answered the question asked by the noble Baroness opposite, I made it clear that the devolved Administrations were part of efforts to anticipate the findings that will come through and ensure that we are well prepared.

Strike Action

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I said, the Government do not negotiate; it is for the employers and the unions to get together. There have been negotiations that involve not only pay but changing practices, which I strongly support and which will help with services and productivity on the railways, which I strongly support. I regret that people cannot come together and come to an agreement on this, which will help to save the railways’ future.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the deployment of military. I want to follow the question of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton. There are proposals that the military be deployed to replace ambulance workers who are on strike. How many serving military personnel are qualified paramedics or have the formal equivalent recognised qualification, and are not currently on, just back from, or due to go on deployment? We know that our military is under considerable pressure as well.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. These are the sorts of details that the military, the COBRA unit and the departments that may need help from the military are looking at on a contingency basis. One problem we have is predicting what is going to happen with the strikes; every day there seems to be an announcement of different plans, and we are trying to work to make sure that the strikes do not happen.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage
Monday 28th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, as we begin Report, I start by thanking noble Lords for their contributions in Committee, and for the lively debate there. For those in the House coming to it fresh today, I say that this is an important Bill which follows two years of hard work and preparation, which I have the honour of taking over from my noble friend Lord True, who now leads this House.

Each year, £300 billion is spent on public procurement and we seek to make it quicker, simpler, more transparent and better able to meet the UK’s needs than the current patchwork of former EU rules, while remaining compliant with our international obligations. There will be a central Cabinet Office online platform to bring in new players, to improve value for money and to accelerate spending with SMEs. There will also be a comprehensive training programme for those involved in all the new rules and conventions—for example, on managing conflicts of interest. It is, however, a very technical Bill, and I am sorry that we had to withdraw a number of government amendments tabled in Committee to allow further discussion. This was largely successful, so we will come first to a number of amendments in my name, most of which were withdrawn on day one in Committee. As we go through, there will be further technical amendments and other amendments to respond to points made in Committee, notably to stimulate economic growth and to reduce burdens on SMEs. I thank noble Lords for their patience with the sheer number of amendments.

Amendment 1 and the amendments consequential on it introduce new technical definitions of “procurement” and “covered procurement”. I know these concepts caused some concern in Committee, so I will try to clarify matters. “Covered procurement” means those procurements that are covered by the vast majority of the provisions in the Bill. They are mostly procurements by contracting authorities, above the relevant thresholds for goods, services and works, which are not exempted from the Bill. These are the procurements which most of us will have had in mind during our deliberations in Committee.

However, the Bill also covers some aspects of procurements which go beyond this, which is why we have a wider definition of “procurement”, meaning any procurement. That allows the Bill to make some limited provision in relation to matters such as below-threshold procurements—for example, in Part 6—and notably to comply with international rules or certain treaties. I understand that the term “covered procurement” may seem unusual, but it is one included in our international procurement agreements, including the GPA—the WTO agreement on government procurement—and familiar to the procurement community.

Amendment 1, and a number of other government amendments, streamline fundamental concepts that are relied on throughout the Bill and will improve the readability and consistency of the legislation. Amendments 2, 5 and 6 recast the definition of “contracting authorities” to ensure that the right bodies are covered. We are committed to a definition that is broadly consistent in effect with both the existing regulatory scheme and with our international commitments under free trade agreements. Feedback from our ongoing dialogue with stakeholders has indicated that the effect of certain wording differences could lead to some bodies being incorrectly brought within, or excluded from, the scope of the rules. I am grateful for these views, particularly those from the Local Government Association, as they will help to ensure correct application. I am also grateful for its constructive approach to the Bill, which represents a big change for its members, and we appreciated its input.

The amended definition removes the reference to

“functions of a public nature”,

as this does not align with the existing definition. It makes clear that the notion of contracting authority oversight can include oversight by more than one authority. Lastly, it ensures that certain bodies that are publicly owned but operate commercially can operate outside the procurement regime.

Amendment 187 ensures that educational establishments are fully and appropriately excluded from the rules on below-threshold contracts, as well as those relating to implied payment terms in public contracts, payment compliance notices and reporting on payments made under public contracts. This mirrors the approach taken in the current procurement rules and ensures that burdens on low-value contracts in the education area are applied in a proportionate fashion. Amendments 98 to 102, 117, 119, 191, 193, 197, 201 and 202 are consequential.

Amendments 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 provide direction to contracting authorities when a mixed contract involves two or more different elements which could each classify it as a “special regime” contract. We expect that such situations will be rare, but could arise occasionally. Our amendments clarify which regime will apply to their mixed contracts in such circumstances by discouraging unrelated requirements being combined in one procurement. I hope that sentence is clear. More importantly, we must also ensure that the rules concerning mixed contracts are compliant with our international trade agreement obligations.

This group also includes other minor changes, including Amendment 7, which ensures that thresholds are applied properly to frameworks, and Amendment 8, which ensures that frameworks for the future award of exempted contracts only are also exempt. Frameworks involving a mixture of elements covered by both the Bill and the forthcoming healthcare procurement regulations will be subject to the same basic tests as set out in Clauses 4 and 9 on mixed contracts, which determine which rules will apply. This is important to prevent abuse of the exemption provisions; it also includes Amendment 185, which corrects a mistaken reference to a power for Northern Ireland departments, which unfortunately does not exist.

Amendment 170 is a technical adjustment to Clause 111 to make it clear that any regulations made to disapply the Bill to procurements in scope of the forthcoming healthcare procurement regulations can be made whether or not the procurement regulations are yet in force. Finally, Amendments 194, 195 and 196 amend the index of defined expressions in Clause 115.

I thank noble Lords for their patience, and will turn to the amendments tabled by other noble Lords when I have heard from them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 3 and 173. I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord True, for responding to my questions, in private meetings but also at previous stages of the Bill, about why the NHS is treated differently from every other part of the public procurement sector covered by the Bill. The problem is that I have not yet heard a clear answer to that; nor, indeed, did those noble Lords who took part in the Health and Care Act during its time here get a clear answer from the Health Minister as to why this was proposed. More recently, in Committee, the Minister said that it was because only clinical services would be covered by these special arrangements for the NHS. I will come in a minute to the reasons for my concerns that that is not the case, but I start by saying very simply that Amendment 3 puts the NHS in the Bill, in the definition of a public body that has to observe the details of regulation under the Bill.

Moving on to the practical problems, the key issue is what is said in the National Health Service Act 2006 and the Health and Care Act 2022, which attempts to amend it. The specific amendment has not been enacted yet, but we can all assume, with the permission of the House, that it is this Bill that is holding that up. The Health and Care Act adds new Section 12ZB to the National Health Service Act, which says:

“Regulations may make provision in relation to the processes to be followed and objectives to be pursued … in the procurement of (a) health care services … and (b) other goods or services”.


The problem is that the new section goes on to say:

“Regulations under subsection (1) must, in relation to the procurement of all health care services … make provision for the purposes of ensuring transparency; ensuring fairness; ensuring that compliance can be verified; managing conflicts of interest”.


That is a very different bar of compliance than the Government want to see for every other part of the public sector covered by the Bill. At the strategic level, it will be enormously helpful to understand why the Government feel it is appropriate for the NHS not to be included, but my practical problem is that we have relied somewhat on the assurances of Ministers at the Dispatch Box that only clinical services would be caught by the new SIs under the Health and Care Act and the NHS Act 2006. I have just read out the parts that show that is absolutely not the case. In fact, there is a catch-all in “other goods or services”. So, while we spent a little time in Committee trying to discuss where the boundaries are, it seems to me that there are no such boundaries, and that leaves me very greatly concerned about how this will work in practice.

I have tabled Amendment 173 because if Amendment 3 is carried, Clause 111 is not needed. There is also an argument that if, for any reason, Amendment 3 is not carried, Amendment 173 will stand in its own right, but the two are inextricably linked. These two amendments are saying that the NHS should be covered in the Bill. I end by saying to the Minister that, despite the many amendments from noble Lords all around the House, I think everyone agrees that the Bill is better than the procurement arrangements we have had in the past, particularly in attempting to get transparency and accountability. The problem is that the arrangements for the NHS are not visible; they are SIs at the discretion of any Secretary of State for Health, and we have not even seen those in draft yet. I hope the Minister can give me some very clear reassurances or explanations, otherwise I may have to test the opinion of the House later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is a point, but I did try to explain in my introduction that there was concern during the passage of the Health and Care Act, to which I was not party, that the NHS arrangements—I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is nodding her head. Perhaps she is nodding it negatively.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The important thing the House needs to hear is that during the passage of the Health and Care Act, Members from all sides of your Lordships’ House asked repeatedly why special arrangements were being made for NHS procurement when we knew that there was a Procurement Bill coming down the line and had not seen any detail of it. That is the question we are all waiting to hear the answer to.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think I have been clear on the background to why it is different. I have also promised that regulations and guidance are being put together and will make very clear the differences: where the NHS rules need to apply and where the Procurement Bill needs to apply. That is the way in which these Bills have been constructed together. There are reasons. Especially on small NHS contracts involving social care, clinical services and so on, it clearly makes a great deal of sense to have a separate regime.

I am sure we will come back to that at the end, but out of courtesy I turn to the other amendments. Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, proposes to rework the notion of control in the definition of a contracting authority in amended Clause 1(3)(b), to be consistent with the notion of a controlled person in Schedule 2. We have looked at this again in dialogue with the concerned stakeholders, notably the Local Government Association.

The meaning of control in Clause 1 is different from that in Schedule 2, and they need to be kept separate. The use of “control” in Clause 1, which sets out the contracting authority definition, is intended to ensure that contracting authorities that have a board where public authorities appoint more than half the members are themselves considered to be contracting authorities. This might include, for example, some centralised procurement authorities.

By contrast, the “controlled person” for the purposes of Schedule 2 is much narrower and intentionally very limited as it is intended to capture only a narrow group of entities, closely owned and controlled by contracting authorities. It requires that the controlling contracting authority is a “parent”, within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006. Although this might cover some of the same ground as majority board appointments, the concept used in Clause 1, it is not the same thing, and the text of the amendment can be satisfied in other ways. There is also a secondary activity threshold, which means that 80% of the activities carried out by the controlled person must be on behalf of its controlling authority. I am afraid that neither factor is appropriate to the contracting authority definition and their inclusion would have the effect of taking many organisations outside the scope of the contracting authority definition.

I recognise that, as my noble friend said, consistency is often desirable, but these terms achieve different aims. It is important that the Procurement Bill covers, as closely as possible, the same scope of bodies as in the existing procurement regulations, both for certainty and continuity for our authorities and to ensure compliance with the definition of a contracting authority in our free trade agreements.

I should, in passing, thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her Amendment 190, which reflects discussion in Committee and which the Government are glad to support.

Moving on, I come to some of the very wide points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, although it is possible that some of these will come up again later on Report. It may be disappointing to the noble Lord, but we cannot go into the detail of individual contracts. Where a contract has been found to have underperformed or the PPE provided was not up to standard, the Department of Health and Social Care is working to reach a successful outcome—this includes mediation—for the taxpayer.

Offers for the supply of PPE came from a wide range of people from within government and outside. No matter where they came from, offers went through a robust process of checks and controls led by officials. This included price and quality checks as well as due diligence and credibility. As for Medpro, this is a live issue; we are currently engaged in a mediation process with PPE Medpro and I am therefore unable to comment on the specifics of this contract.

More positively, however, the Covid inquiry will cover procurement and the distribution of key equipment and supplies, including PPE and ventilators. In my view, that is quite right. It will also identify the lessons to be learned from all this and inform preparation for future pandemics across the UK.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we come to Part 5 of the Bill on conflicts of interest, where the Government have sought to give greater clarity on these obligations, partly in the light of the difficult experience during Covid-19.

On the one hand, it is critical that the public and businesses trust our approach in procurement. They must trust that we are acting with integrity—an important word today—spending public money responsibly and that suppliers will be treated fairly. The Bill is a step forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has been kind enough to acknowledge. On the other hand, we must not have a process which overall has a chilling effect because good honest suppliers who do not understand the arrangements are needlessly put off participating in procurement.

I turn to the various amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and spoken to with great passion by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: Amendments 404, 407, 409, 410, 412, 413, 421, 422 and 423.

The Cabinet Office commissioned Sir Nigel Boardman to review communications procurement in the department. His first report was published in December 2020 and focused on Covid-19 and the difficulties then. A major public inquiry is now on the way, and of course we need to learn the lessons of that. However, his recommendations in that report have been substantially implemented by the department. For example, Procurement Policy Note 04/21 includes comprehensive guidance for authorities on how to ensure that conflicts are managed appropriately.

Before I comment on the individual amendments, I will try to reply to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I emphasise that the Boardman recommendations have not been ignored. The Cabinet Office has implemented them in its commercial operations. It is not appropriate to put every recommendation into legislation, which of course applies for many different types of contracting authority and procurement —large and small. Our provisions allow for a framework in which authorities can implement best practice in accordance with their governance structures.

The noble Lord raised the subject of sanctions. Boardman’s recommendation 26 highlighted that there needed to be sanctions and that these should be made clear in policy and guidance. The Procurement Bill is not the place to detail every possible sanction for every breach. Disciplinary action should be for each authority to enforce as well. If a supplier believes there to be a breach, the Bill provides appropriate remedies in Part 9.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also questioned the recommendations on direct award. As mentioned on Monday, we have introduced a new requirement that contracting authorities must now publish a transparency note before they award a direct award contract. This obviously did not happen during Covid and is a major safeguard.

Amendment 404 would require contracting authorities to take all steps to identify conflicts. This risks creating an impossible threshold for authorities to meet. It could always be argued that more steps should have been taken.

On Amendments 407 and 409, we agree that the Bill’s current scope of those “acting in relation” to the procurement is the right one. We have set out more detail on different groups of individuals involved in commercial guidance, as obviously there are broader groups now involved, in the Procurement Policy Note 04/21, which is the right place for that information. Amendment 410 would add obligations on suppliers relating to conflicts. Suppliers of course also have a role in mitigating conflicts, and this can be seen in Clause 75(2).

The Bill has generally sought to avoid regulatory obligations on suppliers, and such prescriptions are better placed in guidance than in legislation. This ensures that a proportionate approach can be applied by both smaller local councils and large central government departments. The purpose of Amendment 412 is to broaden the evaluation of conflicts. We do not think that this is needed, as the Bill already includes the principle of integrity, in Clause 11.

Amendment 413 requires that suppliers declare, during the procurement process, whether they have given a donation or loan of more than £7,500 to a political party in a calendar year. This was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. UK electoral law already sets out a stringent regime of donation controls, which I am very familiar with. Donations from the same source that amount to over £7,500 in one calendar year are included. Donation reports are published online by the Electoral Commission for public scrutiny, providing an appropriate level of transparency. We do not see the need to add this to the Bill.

Amendments 421 and 423 concern former Ministers and civil servants. We certainly want to avoid the risks of individuals leaving the public sector and exploiting privileged access to contacts in government or sensitive information. To mitigate these risks, the Civil Service Management Code includes business appointment rules, which apply to all civil servants who intend to take up an appointment after leaving the Civil Service. They replace requirements on former civil servants which include standing aside from involvement in certain activities: for example, commercial dealings with their former department or involvement in particular areas of their new employer’s business.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I absolutely accept the point about the change to civil servants’ arrangements. The example that I gave is outside the Civil Service, as would be many other contracts issued through this Bill when it becomes an Act. Can she assure me that every member of staff in any body or agency would be covered in the same way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, if I might try to assist, employment tribunals in the private sector have taken the view that you can have fairly tight, limited terms. I am sure that one of the reasons my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lord Scriven chose six months was that that is the sort of term that is acceptable.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will look into the point about the Civil Service, but certainly people are very careful about the Civil Service rules when they leave. I say that as someone who left many years ago. The rules are observed by civil servants on the whole and we try to emphasise that. As has been said, what we are trying to do here is have a regime that covers not only the Civil Service but elsewhere. However, as always, my noble friend Lady Noakes has bowled a good ball, so I will look into that.

I turn now to Amendment 422, which proposes to introduce a power specifying how conflicts of interest are to be managed on a day-to-day basis. The Bill covers the plethora of organisations which make up the public sector and gives clear obligations on all contracting authorities to identify and mitigate their conflicts. It would not be wise to start dictating the implementation of such a process for each and every authority, so we do not think the power is right.

My noble friend Lady Noakes has spoken to Amendments 415 and 419 on the definition of a conflict of interest, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, came in helpfully too. I recognise that Clause 74 does not explicitly define “conflict of interest” as it does “Minister”, for example. However, Clause 74(2), combined with the definitions, does give conflict of interest a meaning, so it is correct to say elsewhere, as in Clause 75(5), that conflict of interest has the meaning given by Clause 74.

By inference, then, a conflict of interest is where a personal, professional or financial interest of a relevant person, as set out in Clause 74, could conflict with the integrity of the procurement. Essentially, this is where there is a risk that someone from the contracting authority, who is involved in the procurement, could benefit from taking a decision that might not be in the best interests of the contracting authority itself.

Finally, there is Amendment 417, which would remove Clause 76(4). I reassure my noble friend that the purpose of Clause 76(4) is to help, not hinder, contracting authorities. A perceived conflict, as provided for in Clause 76(4), is where a person might wrongly believe there to be a conflict when in fact no actual or potential conflict arises. We must obviously make sure that the public and suppliers are confident that the public sector is conducting its procurements in a fair and open way. We therefore need to consider what others may perceive about the procurement process. I have asked officials to look at the precise wording in Clause 76(4) to ensure that this is properly expressed and is not misleading. I hope that at this late hour my contributions have helped noble Lords to understand the balance that we are trying to draw and what we are trying to achieve. I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Monday 21st February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak specifically to Amendment 6 but I endorse the others, for reasons that will become apparent. One thing we have all become aware of, post Grenfell and the Hackitt review, is concerns about repeat problems emerging, whether they are systemic ones to do with the way a building has been built or newly emerging issues. They happen time and again, and yet the industry, councils and Parliament do not seem to learn from them. I shall give one brief illustration to explain.

In my role as health spokesperson for my group in the Lords, I know that we are increasingly concerned about some of the mould and damp issues increasingly found in more recent 1960s buildings, to which landlords have been very slow to respond. There is clearly a public health issue where especially children and the clinically vulnerable remain at risk and become ill, and yet there does not seem to be a mechanism to provide a review to make sure that there is learning from this, especially since it is happening across the country.

The other amendments in this group set out a swathe of mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability for the BS regulator, the Secretary of State and Parliament. Returning to Dame Hackitt’s review, these amendments would be a strategic element to push the culture change that she sought, to make sure that those who have some responsibility have to look at a higher level to make sure that buildings are safe and are dealt with, and that the costs, both in building and in human experience, are monitored.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Briefly, I support the idea of review clauses and of learning from mistakes. Obviously, I have not been a Minister in this area, but I was a Minister in other areas and I did agree, occasionally, to review clauses where people had concerns. I found that the reports that came along two years later—if one survived that long—were actually extremely useful, and ensured that the Civil Service system was behind the objectives of the Bill. Exactly what one would put in a review clause is another question. I would certainly want added some of the points I made earlier—which the Minister helpfully said were contained in a code of practice for regulators—bringing up the agenda the sort of good practice we have seen at some of our better regulators, such as the HSE. I hope the Minister will think about whether there is scope for a review clause to help on some of these issues.

We talked about sprinklers. As people know, I have run supermarkets, so I have had practical experience of all these different fire safety methods. Certainly, when sprinklers were put in, it took away a lot of headaches, provided you could secure the water supply. That sort of innovation—whatever the new ones are; AI or whatever—can form part of a review process two, four or six years later.