Whistleblowers

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Berkeley

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I say, we are absolutely committed to lead from the top on this issue. That includes in the health service where, as the noble Lord said, there have been some terrible examples of professional staff being discriminated against and losing their jobs. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health is working on this issue, and I hope to be able to come back to the House in due course and update noble Lords on the progress being made.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, last week I chaired a meeting upstairs with about two dozen whistleblowers, who each spoke about their experiences in the public sector and the private sector and their appalling treatment from their employers. Many of them lost their homes, partners and jobs, and there was no fair trial or hearing. Does my noble friend not agree that more needs to be done? Will she look carefully at the Bill promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to set up a whistleblowing office so that everybody knows where to go? Otherwise, we are never going to have a one-stop shop that is safe for whistleblowers, which is surely what we need.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I say, we are looking at the calls for an office for the whistleblower. It is a proposal that I know attracts a great deal of support. We are considering other ideas as well, but we want to make sure that all the individuals my noble friend talks about have somewhere they can go and have their complaints taken seriously. We understand that. That requires changes in process and in procedure, but ultimately in culture so that these individuals are taken seriously. We will drive that forward and we will require employers to take these issues seriously, but for the moment we are still working on whether we need a specific office for the whistleblower.

Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Berkeley

2nd reading
Friday 6th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for tabling this Bill. It has enabled us to have a fascinating and wide-ranging discussion. I have certainly learned a lot about the issues as we have gone forward.

At the outset, I should say that I share the concerns of noble Lords at the number of traffic deaths that have occurred, and we share that determination to make sure that we prevent further deaths by whatever means possible. I also assure noble Lords that we have received proper briefings from the fire service. We have met and talked with it and take its concerns very seriously. I hope that, as a result of this debate and the issues that I shall come on to, we will have a common cause on the way forward.

The Government recognise the intent of the Bill and the importance of safe storage, use and disposal of lithium-ion batteries. However, for reasons that I will set out, and as I think noble Lords already know, we have reservations about this particular Bill. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords about the alternative that we propose.

First, I reassure your Lordships that the Government take product safety extremely seriously. As such, we are already taking significant steps to protect people from the types of harm that the Bill aims to address. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, which sits within my department, has been working with colleagues from across government and industry to ensure that action is taken to protect consumers and remove dangerous products from the market. For example, action has focused on assessing the compliance of manufacturers and importers to ensure products are safe when placed on the market; issuing guidance for repairers to make them aware of their responsibilities to be competent to complete safe repairs and modifications; giving consumers clear information to enable them to purchase and use products safely; and ensuring that online marketplaces play their part in keeping consumers safe.

The OPSS has been working with local authorities and has successfully targeted unsafe and non-compliant products at the border to prevent them entering the UK in the first place. We have also engaged with UK businesses to ensure that compliance with regulations is carried out, and we have worked with the fire and rescue services to identify products involved in incidents and to take action where unsafe products are identified. Our efforts have led to 18 separate product recalls and 20 other enforcement actions for unsafe or non-compliant e-bikes or e-scooters since 2022. The OPSS has issued 26 withdrawal notices on eight online marketplaces and two manufacturers and across 16 separate sellers to stop the sale of dangerous models of e-bike battery manufactured by Unit Pack Power that were identified by the fire and rescue authorities’ investigations.

While batteries and chargers may individually be compliant with the law, we know that if they are used in a combination that is not compatible there is a risk of product failure leading to serious fires. This may also be the case when an e-bike or e-scooter draws more power from a battery than it is manufactured to supply safely. The emerging evidence base also suggests that, when these products are modified inappropriately, they can pose a high safety risk. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, were right to make the point about the dangers of modification and conversion; evidence shows that there is a particular danger of fire when that occurs.

Based on this evidence, earlier this year the OPSS launched the e-bike and e-scooter repairer project, working with local authorities across the UK to conduct inspections at local businesses involved in the maintenance and modification of e-bikes and e-scooters. Those inspections are focused on providing advice and guidance on businesses’ legal responsibilities to complete safe modifications and repairs. In addition, the OPSS published a safety message for consumers in the run-up to Christmas last year, with five steps to follow to reduce risks when purchasing, using or charging an e-bike or e-scooter. This followed guidance on safe charging published by Fire England. Further guidance was also published by the Department for Transport in February this year. We continue to work closely with fire and rescue services and other stakeholders to raise consumer awareness and reduce the risk of fire.

Noble Lords are right to raise concerns about how easy it can be for unsafe products to find their way on to the market through online marketplaces. That is why, in addition to the action that I have just referenced, the OPSS wrote to major online marketplaces earlier this year to express its concerns about the availability of unsafe products online. We have demanded action on the need for user instructions to be supplied with all e-bikes and e-scooters, including batteries and accessories. In addition, online marketplaces must comply with legal notices that prevent the supply of specific products.

Existing product safety law is clear: products must be safe before they are placed on the market, and those seeking to profiteer from the supply of products that are unsafe will be dealt with. However, while a significant amount has already happened to ensure that people are kept safe, we know that much more must be done. As noble Lords will be aware, the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill was introduced by the Government on Wednesday. It will have its Second Reading here on 8 October. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I hope that many of the points he raised will be raised at that Second Reading, when there will be a proper, thorough debate.

This Bill will ensure that we have a regulatory framework that is agile and adaptable in a digital world. The potential fire risks posed by lithium-ion batteries is today’s challenge, but it is not the first and it will not be the last. As the products we buy and the way we buy them adapt in a digital world, it is essential that we have laws that can adapt and go forward when we need them to protect the public. This is what the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will deliver. Through the powers in that Bill, we will be able to respond to emerging risks in product safety. This includes, where necessary, strengthening regulation to respond to risks from a range of products such as lithium-ion batteries and e-bikes, protecting consumers. It will also allow us to look more closely at those who are making these products available on the market, including online marketplaces, and to take the necessary steps to stop unsafe goods reaching consumers.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that product safety should start with safe design and I very much hope that our Bill will be at the heart of that. I also agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, who said that this is an opportunity for us to be trail-blazers in global safety standards. There are huge opportunities in the marketplace for us to set standards and to maximise our growth in this market if we get it right, so there is a win-win in pursuing this with vigour.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My noble friend has given the House a good list of the work that has been done recently to make the whole system safer, and I am hoping that the new Bill will do that, but have the Government got as far as being able to persuade the London Fire Brigade, for example, to withdraw its ban, or recommended ban, on scooter batteries on trains and things like that? In other words, are they happy that the new regulations will enable people to use these things safely wherever they want to go?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I do not know the answer to that specifically. My instinct is that there needs to be a policy of “safety first” on issues such as the London Underground, but we may well get those standards to a high enough level. I was very interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about passports for batteries. There may be schemes like that that we could adopt. I do not know the answer, but it is a very good point that I think we can pursue outside this Chamber.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Winston for delivering an interesting lesson on the science and chemistry behind these products: I know that we all learned from it. I reassure him that the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will allow for changes to labelling to ensure that proper details are updated and safety information on products is made clear.

Climate: Behaviour Change (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Berkeley

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I had the pleasure of joining the Environment and Climate Change Committee after its work on the report on behaviour change was completed. However, I have read the report and absolutely concur with its findings, very ably articulated today by our excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.

The report makes it clear that behaviour change is one part of the necessary toolbox to achieve our net- zero target by 2050. Government policies and fiscal incentives can go only so far. There has been a lot of talk of hectoring and compulsion, of the danger of pushing through policies against the wishes of the people, but there is huge public support for actions to tackle climate change. As the ONS report makes clear, 64% of adults say they are worried about the impact of climate change, and 59% feel that this and the environment are among the top issues concerning voters today. People want to do the right thing. What they lack is a clear road map to make the necessary changes in their lives in the most cost-effective way.

Leadership and direction need to come from the top, but when did Rishi Sunak last make a meaningful contribution on the need to tackle climate change? He is remembered mostly for turning up late and leaving early at COP 27.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Using helicopters.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

And using helicopters. He is increasingly pandering to the anti-green faction on his own Back Benches, who put fossil fuels before green energy.

This lack of government leadership and awareness of the scale of the challenge was reflected in the response to the committee’s report. It is, by any measure, disappointing. It refers to a plethora of policies and strategies which we know are not being enacted effectively. This failing is clearly demonstrated in our report in relation, for example, to the delays in the boiler upgrade scheme, which we will debate at a later date.

The government response to the committee also fails to grasp the need for greater co-ordination and leadership across departments to provide the public with a clear narrative about the road to change. Yet when Grant Shapps recently gave evidence to our committee, it became clear that net-zero policies were still not a priority for some of his colleagues.

The government response to the committee also failed to recognise the huge benefits in delivering behaviour change in partnership with civil society, local government and business groups. This is particularly important given that the BEIS public attitudes tracker shows that the UK Government are now one of the least trusted sources of accurate information about climate change, so working with other, more trusted partners is key.

On key policy areas, such as aviation and food production, there was a marked reluctance to intervene, yet we know that individuals will have to make difficult choices in these areas if we are to have any hope of reaching our targets.

Since our report was published, Chris Skidmore MP has published his impressive net zero review, which examined how the UK could better meet its net-zero targets in a changing world. He identifies that huge economic opportunities of clean technology could be taken if we moved quickly and acted decisively. But his report echoes the themes of our report. He emphasises that the Government need to ramp up engagement with the public by publishing a public engagement strategy this year, and he proposes the creation of a carbon calculator to provide consumers with better information to make informed decisions on their carbon footprint.

As the evidence for a proper behaviour change strategy stacks up, I hope that the Minister will feel able to give a more positive welcome to our report’s recommendations in his response.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Berkeley

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support most of the speeches made in support of this amendment. I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend Lord Snape about too many announcements. It is better to have too many than too few. Coincidentally, today I got news from the Oxford Mail that Oxfordshire County Council is stopping all subsidies to buses. It made the decision this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Low, spoke about the Oxford Bus Company, which is very good, but 117 routes will be cancelled, mainly to small towns and villages. If we think about the effect on people who cannot see or who have reduced mobility, they cannot drive. The article does not say how many people will be affected by it, but it is obviously going to have a serious effect on people’s lives in just one county. Of course, it is blaming government cuts, rightly or wrongly, and we can debate that. But if the council had waited a year or two until some of this legislation had gone through, the Minister might say that it could easily keep those services because they will be so much better and operators will not need a subsidy anymore because there will be so many more people, presumably under the age of 16, paying for their fares. It is a serious warning. Just one county, which is probably not the poorest county in the country, has said, “Damn the buses. We don’t really care. They’re old, infirm, poor and probably don’t vote Tory. We’ll dump them”. It is a very sad coincidence that it has happened today.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Brinton. I shall speak also to Amendments 122 and 126 in my name. I am very grateful for the support of noble Lords who have spoken on them.

These amendments build on the requirements in the Equality Act 2010 for businesses to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that people with disabilities can access goods and services. Action on these issues is vital as the Department for Work and Pensions survey shows that 37% of disabled respondents found transport accessibility a significant barrier to work. We clearly have a long way to go to create a service to which all potential users have access.

Amendment 122 is, I hope, straightforward. It builds on the good practice that exists among enlightened bus operators around the country. It requires all bus operators to provide compulsory, approved equality and disability awareness training by 1 April 2019. It makes the important point that disability is not always obvious and can include mental and other hidden disabilities. We believe that all bus drivers need the skills to identify these potential disabilities, understand the legal framework that applies and have the confidence to intervene effectively when problems arise. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Judd about the need for public awareness training, but it has to be underpinned by clear legislation and training. In my experience, the public are much more aware of and sympathetic to these issues than we give them credit for. Quite often it is members of the public who come to the rescue of people who are trying to get on to transport; they want to help but do not feel they are getting the support they need to intervene.

We contend that it is not good enough to provide this training on a voluntary or ad hoc basis. With all equality training, the experience is that those who acknowledge that they need the training the most do not really need it: it is those who have to be forced to go on the training who need it the most. It has to be a universal and regular provision.

I ask the Minister for clarification on the Brexit implications of the proposals. As I understand it, Britain currently has a five-year exemption from the EU directive requiring bus drivers and terminal staff to undergo disability awareness training. The exemption runs out in 2018, and we would have expected the requirement to have been put in UK law by then. Will the Minister clarify the status of that obligation now? Is the department on course to implement it, or is this something that can now be achieved more quickly, perhaps through the vehicle of the Bill by adopting our amendment or something similar?

Our Amendment 126 addresses the need for all buses to have audio-visual communication systems to advise passengers of the next stop, any delays and any diversions from the published timetable. The amendment has the support of over 30 charities and bus providers. It would make a vital difference to the lives of almost 2 million people with sight loss, as well as many elderly people who rely on public transport for their independence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, currently only 19% of buses are fitted with AV. Those of us who travel regularly by bus in London realise how liberating and reassuring the service can be, and indeed it frees the driver to concentrate on the roads. I say to my noble friend Lord Snape that I travel on London buses a lot and I have never been irritated by the voice of the AV system; I always find it soothing and reassuring.

It is not like that in the rest of the country, though; a recent Guide Dogs report showed that seven in 10 passengers with sight loss have missed a stop because the driver has forgotten to tell them where to get off. Understandably, this is both distressing and potentially dangerous. AV provision already applies to all new trains. It makes sense to replicate that provision for buses so that we can have a properly integrated public transport system with equal rights and facilities across the piece.

As we have heard, some bus operators have argued that the cost could be prohibitive, but we do not accept that. The latest estimates are that it could be installed for around £2,000 per bus. At the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, a recent study in Oxford showed that if the messenger system was also allowed to include adverts, it could pay for itself in two years. When we met the Minister, Andrew Jones, at the start of the process, he seemed sympathetic to the arguments that have been put on this issue. I understand that he has since said he accepts that the costs have come down, and is therefore reflecting on the next steps. I am also grateful to the Minister here for our earlier meeting on the issues that are covered in the amendments, and I know that more discussions are being planned. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some good news today, and will feel able to confirm that he is prepared to support the amendments.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Berkeley

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Bradley and the noble Baroness in this grouping. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has a point about why franchises should be postponed or cancelled. It brings to mind the situation in which a franchise is advertised and several companies respond, spending quite a lot of money in the process. If it is then cancelled for no particular reason, they could probably reasonably ask for their tendering costs to be reimbursed, although that will probably never happen. However, it behoves the franchising authority to produce a franchising document against which companies will bid, and if nobody bids, it will not have achieved anything. Therefore it is not all one-way. My gut feeling is that if it makes a mess of it and then issues it again within six months or so, that is much too short a time, but on the other hand five years is too long. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made some good points in his amendments, but I would reduce the time to two years or so, which is a more reasonable time in which to do this.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first speak to Amendments 59 and 60 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which specify that any decision to postpone or cancel a franchising scheme cannot be revisited for five years.

There are many legitimate reasons why these decisions are postponed, and we believe that there is a danger that this amendment would have the converse effect of forcing imperfect schemes to proceed, to avoid the five-year moratorium. On the other hand, we believe that there are enough checks and balances in the Bill to allow decision-makers to reflect and rethink their proposals, so a ban for five years on revisiting the option is unnecessary and we would not support it.

Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bradley seems to provide a safety net for franchise providers to ensure that service permits which are issued do not undermine the viability of franchise schemes as a whole. This seems sensible, so we support the amendment.

Finally, we support the concept in Amendment 67 that any franchise service permit issued should first be subject to consultation, not only with the service providers but with the service users. This theme has run through a number of our amendments and we support it in this context. I therefore hope the noble Lord will agree with the sense of that amendment.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Berkeley

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, on the amendments that we have discussed in Committee, many noble Lords have said how important it is for devolution to happen and for local authorities around the country to be able to operate franchises without too many controls from central government. Whether that happens or not, the importance of independence in the audit is vital, as other noble Lords have said. It would be so easy for some local authorities in the future to get it wrong and then for a rather nasty article to appear in Private Eye, suggesting that the leader’s brother-in-law was the auditor. I am sure that would never happen, but we do need independent checks. My noble friend Lord Snape’s suggestion of traffic commissioners appointing the auditor has enormous merit. The two issues in Amendment 42 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and myself, about the affordability of the scheme and whether it represents value for money, are the two most important ones that should be focused on by the auditor. Then we would all feel comfortable that it would probably work very well.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, we very much support the intent of the first amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and of Amendment 42, which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Bradley. It is important that the audit process is properly independent and provides a trustworthy external scrutiny—that makes perfect sense. It also makes perfect sense to ensure that the proposals are properly costed and that we can have confidence that they are affordable.

However, regrettably, we do not feel able to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Snape—we seem to be making a habit of that. We believe that his amendment is too specific and restraining and we hope that, on reflection, he will feel able to support Amendments 41 and 42, which we believe would achieve the additional reassurance he seeks and ensure that a fair, independent assessment process takes place. I hope that my noble friend will reconsider and that the Minister will feel able to support the first two amendments.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Berkeley

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bradley on Amendment 22. It is one of these odd arrangements when you have, in one group, the Minister moving a government amendment and then somebody else proposing an amendment, so the Minister answers before you have stated the case. But I do want to state the case. My noble friend is very apologetic.

The purpose of this amendment is to make it possible for a passenger transport executive to enter into a local service contract with operators once the ITA or combined authority has decided to implement a franchising scheme. New Section 123A(4) of the Transport Act 2000 sets out which bodies qualify as franchising authorities, but the list does not include passenger transport executives. In a number of metropolitan areas, the PTE continues to be the executive body for transport responsible to the combined authority. This amendment would explicitly allow a PTE to be the contracting body if that was judged most appropriate locally.

The amendment would also help to future-proof the legislation, given the way the Government’s arrangements continue to evolve in different ways in different areas. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister’s response to this. That is the message from my noble friend Lord Bradley.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, very briefly, first, we accept the case made by the Minister that Amendment 20 is a tidying-up amendment and that it is not necessary to make explicit provision in the Transport Act 2000 for advanced quality partnerships, franchising and enhanced partnerships. We are therefore content with this change.

We also support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Bradley, which would extend the prescriptive proposals on franchising authority functions to the executive of an integrated transport authority if needed. This reflects the reality of decision-making in a number of larger authorities and is therefore a more practical application of the Bill. We were very pleased to hear that the Minister has agreed to take that away and do more work on it. We look forward to hearing the outcome of those further deliberations.