Nuclear Test Veterans

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support nuclear test veterans.

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

The Government are dedicated to acknowledging and honouring the contribution of nuclear test veterans. The Government hosted an event at the National Memorial Arboretum in November 2022, at which a new commemorative medal to mark the contribution of nuclear test veterans was announced by the Prime Minister. We also introduced the £250,000 oral history project to help tell their life stories and a £200,000 community fund, enabling organisations to deliver bespoke programmes that build further understanding and support veterans and their families.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the great progress being made, but I raise the issue of veterans who have been given conflicting statements on the availability of blood and urine sample records. In 2018 the MoD acknowledged its inability to locate that information, yet in 2022 the Atomic Weapons Establishment confirmed possession of a limited number of test results. However, in March a Minister contradicted that, saying that the AWE no longer has those records. Veterans’ families have lodged appeals with the Information Commissioner’s Office for more answers. What test data exists for the veterans and in what format and how many does it cover? Will the Government promptly resolve this issue and ensure that affected veterans have access to their rightful medical information, without the need for legal intervention?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord was kind enough to mention to me that he had written to the Government on this matter. His letter has been passed to the Ministry of Defence, which will reply to the detailed points that he has raised. However, there is one certainty: the nuclear test veterans can apply to the Ministry of Defence for access to any personal information. That request can be for any relevant health records or blood data within their service record.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, a dozen years ago, when I was working in the Ministry of Defence, the nuclear test veterans’ organisation brought a case against the Ministry of Defence for compensation. It went to the Supreme Court, which included, at the time, our late and much-respected colleague Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. After some deliberation, it found that there was no case to answer. Indeed, our investigations at the time found that, if one had watched a nuclear test in the South Pacific in the early 1950s, against a cohort of one’s peers, one was more likely to be alive than they were, for whatever reason. That was quite extraordinary. I say to my noble friend the Minister: let us respect those who did their work and duty in the South Pacific but please let us not be led down a blind alley by people who, for some reason, believe that they were harmed. Actually, they were doing their duty, but they were not harmed.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that history, of which I was not aware. I point out that any veteran, including those of the nuclear tests, who believes that they have suffered ill health due to service has a right to apply for no-fault compensation under the War Pensions Scheme. War pensions are payable in respect of illness or injury as result of service in the Armed Forces and with the benefit of reasonable doubt always being given to the claimant, which I regard as very important.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Royal Mint’s advisory committee on coins and medals. I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning that the medal was announced for the veterans, but can she assure the House that the medal will be available for Armistice Day this year?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right that the rollout of the medals has been a little slower than we had expected. We were keen to make progress on this, and we announced last November that the medal would be given to these brave veterans. Others will know that it takes time to design, improve and manufacture a new medal. However, I am absolutely determined—and Johnny Mercer, the Veterans Minister, who everybody will no doubt know, is determined—that we will do everything we can to make those medals available on the chests of veterans on Remembrance Sunday.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, further to the Minister’s exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will she clarify that the Government believe that nuclear test veterans have an absolute right to access any records of tests from samples they have given over the years? Will the Government assist those individuals who are having to follow up the claims themselves, when they believe that medical records are being withheld?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I can certainly confirm that no information is withheld—transparency is very important in this area. Any medical records taken before, during or after participation in the nuclear weapons tests would be held in individual military records in the government archives. Where a veteran is still alive, they can request personal data relating to them as a subject access request. In relation to the Atomic Weapons Establishment, veterans may need to make a freedom of information request, which has been the subject of questions—but nearly all or most of the information is readily available, and it is key to make a subject access request to the MoD.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

The way in which the Minister is answering these questions leaves me very uncomfortable. Is there a member of the Government to whom a veteran can turn and be guaranteed that they will be helped through the process of gaining this information? They were exposed to dangerous radiation, not of their own choice but because they were soldiers at the time—quite properly, but they must now be aided. Many of them are quite old and really need forceful help to solve these problems.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I very much agree that the veterans, because they played such a valuable role in developing our nuclear deterrent, which has kept Britain safe for decades, need to be helped. That is why I have given the assurances that I have in relation to my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence—and, of course, work in the veterans area is co-ordinated by Johnny Mercer, the Veterans Minister. It depends a little on what colleagues require, but of course the Government are here to help on these important issues.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I can never resist a Question with “nuclear” in its title. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will join me in congratulating the Government on the successful launch of the properly funded Great British Nuclear body this morning, led by a Welsh chairman and chief executive, and in welcoming a renaissance of Great Britain’s nuclear industry, which led the world only 40 years ago.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

In the circumstances, I forgive my noble friend for the breadth of her question, and certainly join her in welcoming this event today. It is very important for the future of this country. Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are very important to our stability, resilience and safety.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, to return to the issue of nuclear tests, I am sure that the Minister is aware of the Montebello Islands off the coast of Western Australia, which are at the centre of a 60,000-hectare marine park. Three tests were conducted there, and there is increasing research and concern about residual radioactivity. There are areas where tourists are told not to stay for more than one hour. While the Government rightly focus on the circumstances of British nuclear veterans, are they also keeping a close watching brief on those sites and on the fallout—literally—that continues from those tests and will they make sure that they take any remedial action or provide any remedial support or information that they can to help other countries deal with the leftover situation?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I look forward to discussing the point that the noble Baroness raised in more detail. That is another question of breadth. Clearly, the nuclear test medal was designed specifically to recognise the unique contribution of the personnel who served in the locations, such as Australia, which she mentioned, and who served with UK forces as part of the testing of the vital deterrent.

Vetting Social Media Accounts

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what policies they have in place for vetting the social media accounts of speakers invited to address Civil Service events, and cancelling invitations where past postings are critical of His Majesty’s Government; and what assessment they have made of the compatibility of any such policies with their commitment to free speech.

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

My Lords, the Government are not in the business of limiting free speech. It is the Conservative Party that has consistently defended free speech against attacks from across the political divide. The only guidance we have produced is for cross-departmental diversity networks, to ensure that they conduct checks on external speakers before inviting them to participate in Civil Service events. The guidance helps to maintain impartiality, given that these events take place in Civil Service workplaces and workspaces. For anything beyond that, it is for departments to set their own approach.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I find that a little difficult to accept, because we have slowly begun to hear about who has been cancelled. A chemical weapons expert was cancelled from a chemical weapons conference because of some social media tweets he made two or three years before on other aspects of government domestic policy. If we are going to cancel experts from expert conferences—experts on medical research, digital research or whatever—the Government are going to lose a lot, and not just freedom of speech. The Minister in the Cabinet Office said in the Commons that it is concerned only with

“speakers linked to abhorrent organisations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/5/23; col. 421.]

The chemical weapons expert, whom I have met, is an active Liberal Democrat and an Anglican: I do not know whether the Government regard those as abhorrent organisations. Does the Minister accept that it may now be time to have a free-speech champion in Whitehall along the lines the Government insist on having for universities?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I like to think that we are free speech champions. Unfortunately, the matter the noble Lord raises is now the subject of ongoing legal correspondence, which means it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have read the document concerned—Due Diligence and Impartiality – Supporting and Protecting our Diversity Networks—the guidance and the forms that have to be filled in. I wonder whether many Members of the party opposite who have spoken in this House would be eligible to be invited to events under that guidance. The Minister said that this applies only to cross-departmental events and not to departmental ones. Does the guidance apply only when civil servants meet civil servants from other departments on courses? Does it not apply for meetings and events within a department? More helpfully, can she tell us how many speakers have been blocked and how many invitations have been withdrawn?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The guidance is for cross-government diversity networks. Obviously, there are individual diversity networks in different departments that have existed for some years, and which are helpful and provide support to staff. There may have been a misunderstanding here. This guidance is for such networks; we do not collect individual numbers or monitor what speakers individual diversity networks invite. This guidance was produced in 2021; the Cabinet Office had a review by a senior official in February and it seemed to be working reasonably well.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware that in at least one department, disturbing stories are emerging of civil servants being told that they are not allowed to agree with JK Rowling and such things as that? Civil servants are there to carry out government policy, whichever side the Government come from. Can we not ensure that there is genuine freedom of thought and speech in every Civil Service department?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I very much agree with my noble friend; we need to do exactly that. Civil servants need the ability to listen to different points of view and to serve the Government, whatever their political persuasion, to the best of their ability and in a way that maintains political impartiality. I think that is agreed ground across the House.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, how can the Minister have had a review in her department if it does not keep the data required to do that review?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The HR people group within the Cabinet Office produces different guidance on different things. It has a network in which people regularly discuss how things are operating. The guidance I referred to was considered as part of that process in February. It is available in the Library of the House, if noble Lords want to look at it, as the noble Baroness has obviously done. It is a good thing that it is publicly available.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, the House will know that I am a little slow on certain things, particularly things such as “cross-departmental diversity networks”, which is a strange phrase. Let me ask a simple question. Is it not a fact that all freedoms require counterbalancing responsibilities if they are to mean anything, particularly in the Civil Service, which has an overriding responsibility to act impartially as part of a government system headed by an elected Government? Does my noble friend agree that a balance is absolutely necessary in this? As my noble friend Lord Cormack pointed out, is it not timely for the Civil Service to be reminded of that fundamental responsibility?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I entirely agree with my noble friend. The balance between free speech and Civil Service impartiality is exactly what we are trying to strike.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I am slightly confused. I am no expert on this issue, but am I right in interpreting the noble Baroness as saying that the guidelines in the Library apply only to cross-departmental diversity networks, that diversity network events in a single department are not subject to these guidelines and that a department could decide not to follow them for its internal activities?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The guidelines apply to cross-government diversity networks and they should follow the guidelines, although, obviously, there can be local interpretation.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, we now have a virtual question from the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We certainly are not. I think the noble Lord does not understand what we are trying to do. In the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, the Prime Minister recently stressed the importance of freedom of speech, and we have taken action through it in universities because challenge, debate and free speech are a vital part of British life and the British constitution.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am confused by all the references to the diversity network. My understanding from at least two of those who have been cancelled in this way was that they were invited, in their capacity as experts, to expert conferences. The chemical weapons expert was invited to speak again to a Ministry of Defence-led conference on chemical weapons at which, on the previous occasion, he had spoken alongside a Chinese Communist official who was also a chemical weapons expert. Importantly, the relevance of their views on domestic politics to their expertise is low and should not be a reason for cancelling them. If we are going to go down that road, the Government will be denying themselves a great deal of expertise which is valuable for policy development. Is that the direction in which we may be going?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Of course we need expertise in policy development—I am as keen on that as the noble Lord—but the guidance was developed by the Government People Group for the specific use of the cross-government diversity networks. I cannot comment further for the reasons I outlined at the beginning of the debate, although I believe the Ministry of Defence is looking into the circumstances of one of the cases the noble Lord mentioned, and I will keep him updated when I am able to do so.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the bemusement of other noble Lords. Why are diversity networks being singled out for Government censorship, and how on earth does it compromise Civil Service independence for grown-up professional people to be subjected to a range of even controversial views?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The guidance was developed because of certain things that were happening, notably to remove the risk of extremist views being engaged in some of these diversity networks; it was a particular issue relating to that. If the noble Baroness reads the guidance, she will see that it is measured and tries to ensure that debate and good engagement by the diversity networks continues, but that they are not used as a sort of campaigning platform for nefarious organisations such as terrorists.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 8th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what range of information they have now agreed to provide to the COVID-19 inquiry.

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

My Lords, we have provided, and will continue to provide, the inquiry with all relevant material as requested. Following the request of the chair, the Cabinet Office will share a schedule of WhatsApp messages by the end of this week, and additional witness statements will follow. We have provided enormous quantities of material to the inquiry so far and will continue to do so. We remain determined to provide any potentially relevant material that the chair requests so that we can learn the lessons from this dreadful pandemic.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, this is a total shambles—and there is more to come. As well as this totally futile dispute, I understand that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, has met with Lord Brailsford, who is chairing the separate Scottish report. Members will recall that the separate guidance and response in the different countries of the United Kingdom caused confusion and distress. Two separate reports could cause additional confusion and distress. Will the Minister give a clear indication as to when the reports will be published so that those whose relatives died needlessly will know who was responsible?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is indeed the case that the Scottish Government are doing their own separate inquiry, and they organised separate arrangements during the pandemic. The inquiry is in the hands of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett. She is doing a very wide-ranging inquiry, and the timing of its results depends on her work, which, as I have explained, we are trying our very best to progress. We are providing a huge amount of support from right across government.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My noble friend will recall that, back in 2020 and 2021, the opposition parties were very keen to lock down for longer and harder than we actually did. Could my noble friend tell us what assessment the Government have made of the efficacy of lockdowns and the costs to the country in social, economic, health and educational terms, and whether anybody now believes that the lockdowns were a good idea?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My noble friend speaks powerfully, as always. However, this is a matter for the inquiry. We have set up this wide-ranging inquiry so that these points can be looked at. It is right that different witnesses are recounting their experiences and that the inquiry is able to call upon the sorts of findings that my noble friend has mentioned.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister recall an earlier government-appointed judicial inquiry in which the Government chose what material to release to the judge rather than allowing the judge, under the rule of law, to choose for himself or herself? Also, does the Government’s recourse to judicial review mean that they have now reversed their previous attitude to limiting the judicial review and that therefore we can expect not to see ouster clauses in any future Bills under this Government?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Although this is a much wider inquiry even than other previous important inquiries, the process that has been followed by the Cabinet Office and across Whitehall is very similar in terms of providing information to the chair. There is a judicial review because of a specific technical point raised by the Section 21 notice that has been issued. In terms of judicial review, the noble Lord is right that judicial review must be used with circumspection. However, there is an important technical point here about whether it is right to provide unambiguously irrelevant material to the inquiry which is the subject of the review.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, there is a strong public interest in this inquiry being carried out constructively and expeditiously, and that should also be a public interest between the Government and the investigation. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful if judicial review proceedings were stayed so that the Government and the inquiry could reach a reasonable accommodation on this issue?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord about the possibility of an accommodation being reached. We have had discussions with the inquiry to bridge the gap between sincerely held views. However, we have also requested that any judicial review is held expeditiously, and we are very glad that the court has agreed to deal with this before the end of June. In the meantime—and I cannot emphasise this more strongly—every day more material is being sent into the inquiry and the large teams working on this important matter are co-operating.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister guarantee that the inquiry will be provided with the figures outlining the serious loss of personnel in the NHS, which is causing serious problems in the cancer field, as we have heard about today, and which have occurred over the period that it is investigating?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I assure the noble Lord that anything that is Covid related is being made available to the inquiry, subject to some security points. The impact of the Covid measures on the wider NHS and health is a matter for the chair but is inherently relevant.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not think that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, might draw some lessons from the experience of France and Sweden? They have completed their inquiries and been able to give guidance on where mistakes were made and what should happen in the future. Why on earth has this inquiry been extended in scope such that we cannot get the answers which the entire country is waiting for?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

This is an independent inquiry, and its conduct is for the chair. However, clearly the experience of other countries is also important, and I am sure that material in respect of those will be submitted to the inquiry and taken into account.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I raised this issue of the timing during the Minister’s Statement earlier this week. The amount of information that the Government say is relevant is enormous. They have said that 20 million documents may be relevant to the inquiry and, so far, something like 55,000 have been submitted. Why were the terms of reference of exactly what was required, and a timescale, not agreed between the Government and the inquiry prior to it starting? What is the Government’s assessment of the time that it will take them to go through these 20 million documents?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I explained, ever since the inquiry was agreed, the Government have been helping it to ensure that, as is the precedent of other inquiries, the key documents are made available and appropriate witness statements are prepared. We have extended that process to wider material at its request, to reflect modern communications. The terms of reference were wide and a lot of discretion was left to the chair. The Government are keen to see the inquiry’s conclusions and findings as soon as possible. It is being phased by modules, and we look forward to hearing the chair’s conclusions.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that key documents will include information to the inquiry on the role of procurement, including concerns raised about transparency by the National Audit Office? It does not take an inquiry for the Minister to establish from her noble friends when the issue of the 118 million items still stored in the People’s Republic of China, costing this country £250,000 every day, will be resolved. If she cannot answer that now, will she agree to write?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Arrangements for procurement are very much at the heart of some of the issues in the inquiry, as I remember we discussed here on many occasions with the noble Lord. Of course, this was covered by the terms of reference; I look forward to hearing the conclusions just as much as he does.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder what kind of example the Government think they are setting for other parties to litigation or, indeed, to judicial inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, deserved a better answer; who is the ultimate arbiter of what is relevant when that is in dispute? Is it the Government or the trusted senior judge?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Of course we trust the senior judge. She has control over what she decides within the framework of the inquiry, as we have been discussing, which has advantages and disadvantages. In the judicial review, we are addressing the narrow point of whether it is right to provide unambiguously irrelevant material. This could cover anything from civil servants’ or families’ medical conditions to matters totally unconnected with the Government’s handling of Covid. It seems right to have a ruling on how that should be handled, not least given the implications for future inquiries and future Governments.

Covid-19 Inquiry: Judicial Review

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, what a dog’s breakfast this is when a Government who spend so much time complaining about other people using judicial reviews stand before us trying to justify their decision to use the same legal process to prevent an inquiry that they set up having access to communications sent by members of that very same Government on matters of significant public interest.

The Government’s case appears to be that full disclosure would be unfair because their communications are all over the place, mixing business and pleasure with God knows what in a soup of uncontrolled WhatsApping, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has already flagged. Yet this is a problem entirely of their own making. While the pandemic was not something that anyone could have foreseen, it was entirely predictable that the way this Government have been working would lead to problems. If this were not happening with the Covid inquiry, we would have arrived here sooner or later with some other investigation into government decision-making where disclosure of Ministers’ messages was necessary.

Does the Minister accept that this situation could have been avoided if her Government had shown more discipline in managing government communications from the outset? Does she agree that it was not inevitable that we would end up in this mess—that this could have been avoided through having clear rules such as using different devices for home and work communications, as is common in many other sectors? Can she indicate whether all Ministers are now following improved protocols so that we will not repeatedly fall into this same situation, as there are surely other areas of government policy that will be challenged either in the courts or through future public inquiries?

I am sure that all of us find it hard to keep track of which communications channels we use for which purposes, and it can of course be convenient to mix them up, but the business of government is special and communications about decisions by government that affect millions of people have a particular importance. This importance means that Ministers of the Crown and those working for them should be held to a higher standard, and they have more resources available than most of us to help them meet those high standards.

The fact that this court case is happening is not—however much the Government protest—a way of protecting all Governments from overreach, as not all Governments would have allowed decisions to be made in the way that this one has done. Concerns about this Government acting as a chumocracy, mixing public business with the private interests of their friends and supporters, run much more widely than the supply of PPE during the pandemic.

The public interest is not now served by the Government throwing up legal barriers to those we have tasked with investigating, thoroughly and impartially, how decisions were made on matters of massive public interest. The Minister has a job to do and she has been sent here to defend her Government’s latest actions, but I hope that she will at least acknowledge that this is not a bolt from the blue but an inevitable consequence of how her colleagues have been working for far too long.

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

I start by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that it is difficult to answer questions when we have not had the benefit of the Statement. It was a long Statement in the other place.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The Minister misunderstands. It is difficult to ask the questions, but it should be easy for her to answer them.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is helpful to set things out, and I thank her for trying to do that.

I want to respond to the point about our intentions. The noble Baroness described the inquiry and how it was set up. The Government wholeheartedly support and endorse this important inquiry as it seeks to establish the facts and lessons to be learned from the response to the pandemic. I agree that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, the very distinguished, eminent former Court of Appeal judge who is chairing the inquiry, brings invaluable experience, and we are very grateful to her and the team.

As noble Lords know, the Cabinet Office is challenging the Section 21 notice issued by the chair, fundamentally as a matter of principle. We are protecting the proper conduct of government for the longer term. Indeed, we remain hopeful and willing to agree the best way forward with the inquiry.

The noble Baroness asked about discussions between the Government and the inquiry prior to the application for review. We have been working for months and making documents available. That has been done by the special team for the inquiry in the Cabinet Office. Attempts have been made to agree and, as the noble Baroness said, we are conducting the inquiry under the 2005 Act. The grounds of our review have been set out clearly in a statement of case and grounds. That has been made available and is on GOV.UK so that people can understand what our case is about.

Obviously it is with regret that we felt that judicial review had to be brought. I assure the House that it has been done in relation to unambiguously irrelevant material—I cannot emphasise that more—and as a matter of principle. The Government are not trying to suppress anything. We are happy to provide any potentially relevant material that the inquiry requests, but not unambiguously irrelevant material, which is an unwarranted intrusion into other aspects of the Government’s work. That explains the need for what is, in a sense, a narrow and technical judicial review. It does not touch at all on the Government’s confidence in the inquiry.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked about the JR and felt that people would not understand why we were doing it. The truth is that the Government embarked on this course only after very serious consideration. It is with regret that we had to bring the judicial review forward. We are very aware—I am very aware of this—that it is sometimes in the nature of government that difficult decisions have to be taken, knowing that in the short term there may be criticism, but we believe it is important for the country in the longer term to ensure exactly the arrangements for disclosure. However, I cannot emphasise more strongly that if information relates to Covid then it will be made available to the inquiry.

It is true that there is a lot of documentation, along with WhatsApps, calendars and so on, to be gone through. That is why the Cabinet Office and other departments are doing everything they can to make information available to the inquiry in a usable and sensible form. I emphasise that, on the whole, relations with the inquiry have been harmonious and co-operative. What the inquiry does and decides is a matter for it, but we have done our very best to continue with that and make sure that things run smoothly.

As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, some inquiries in other countries have already concluded. He probably mentioned Sweden, which I think had a less wide-ranging inquiry. There is much wishing here for the inquiry to be very wide-ranging and to look at all the different issues. That is why the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, has set out the procedure for the inquiry in the way that she has, with modules looking at different things. We are assisting her. All government Ministers—those being supported by the Government—are co-operating with the inquiry.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, on the anniversary of D-day, I remind noble Lords that during the pandemic this country alone lost twice as many civilians as we lost during World War II. Therefore it was quite right that the Government decided, like many other countries, to hold some kind of independent inquiry into the handling of something that was difficult for everyone—no question about that. I hope the Minister knows my respect for her; she knows that we share a characteristic of being former civil servants. I declare a further interest in being a former inquiry member, having served on Lord Leveson’s inquiry, so I hope I have a number of insights into this kind of process.

I am concerned that sometimes Governments hold inquiries, important though they are, to kick important issues into the long grass. If I am not right about that, I am sure that a lot of people in the country share a potential cynicism about the inquiries held. I think the noble Lord, Lord Allan, suggested that it is like saying, “We don’t believe in legal aid or in judicial review, but we believe in judicial inquiries whenever there is a political crisis”. I have concerns about that.

In particular, however, I ask the Minister: how is it ethically or publicly appropriate to constitute your own independent judicial inquiry into a matter of such public concern and not to trust the judge—a Member of this House—to decide what is relevant and not relevant, and what is sensitive and not sensitive? If there are things that are sensitive, how is it not appropriate to put in the disclosure with suggested redactions and leave it, for goodness’ sake, to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, rather than to judicially review the government’s own instituted inquiry? Further, and finally, how is it appropriate to use the leverage of withdrawing legal funding from witnesses as a means of deciding that those witnesses—whoever they are, whether I like them or not and whether I agree with them or not—should not co-operate with the inquiry of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, for fear of having legal support withdrawn?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Perhaps I could pick up that last point, which the noble Lord, Lord Allan, also raised—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It was me.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My apologies. There is a well-established precedent, as we all know—I think it goes across many Administrations—that former Ministers are supported with legal representation after they leave office. The cost of that is met from government funds and for good reasons, I think, for when those of us who serve as Ministers are doing so. When the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, decided to recuse from being supported by government legal services a letter was sent to him, explaining that it was possible for him to have his legal advice—if this is what was being referred to—paid for, subject to the normal rules of value for money, as the Permanent Secretary has to sign off that money is properly spent. I think it is a non-issue and that he is now drawing on his own solicitors, Peters & Peters, for advice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, explained that we all agree that we have empowered a very eminent judge. I think she was making the point that it is up to the judge to decide what is relevant and what is not. We agree that the framework of the inquiry is for her to decide, but there is this narrow point about unambiguously irrelevant documents and messages. Some of those are WhatsApps, as has been mentioned. Since the Act was passed, WhatsApps have become a much more common form of communication. You can imagine that in the bundles there is a combination of personal communication and matters that are completely unconnected to the Government’s handling of Covid.

I want to make it clear—the Paymaster-General made it completely clear in the other place—that documents relating to Covid and potentially relevant material will be made available to the inquiry. It is a broad-ranging inquiry. We owe it to the people who lost their lives and those whose relatives lost their lives to find out what happened. The inquiry has to be of a very wide-ranging nature. However, in some of those documents and notebooks, there is material which is completely unconnected to the Covid inquiry.

We have therefore asked a judge to use the process of judicial review—those noble Lords who have been involved in the courts will know this is quite a common process—to rule on this technical point. We hope to have a hearing on this by the end of June so that things will be clear. In the meantime, we are continuing to submit material every day to the inquiry and to work with it.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise for missing the first 30 seconds of the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Some of us were standing by and did not expect business to proceed quite as quickly as it did. I think some others may be in the same position.

The optics of this are not particularly good. I can understand the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Allan. Clearly, individuals involved in this inquiry should not be able to hide behind process and conceal anything which may be relevant to the inquiry. I of course share with others the confidence in the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, as an entirely suitable chair with a very important role to fulfil.

I find some reassurance in the Statement in the description of the process, which has been undergone and will continue, in deciding what should or should not be disclosed. It says:

“Witnesses are required to identify any material that may contain potentially irrelevant information … with guidance from the counsel team supporting them. That is then reviewed by the counsel team, who identify any material that is unambiguously irrelevant. The counsel team discusses it with the witness in case there is any context or detail of which they may not be aware. The review … team includes … a King’s Counsel … No decision to redact material as unambiguously irrelevant has been or will be taken by a witness acting alone”.


There is an important role for the lawyers, rather than the witnesses, in deciding on relevance, although that is a continuous process. This is perfectly familiar to those like me who have been involved in disclosure and judicial review generally. It seems that there is a matter of importance in deciding what should and should not be disclosed, not just for the purposes of this inquiry but for inquiries in the future which may involve different Governments on different issues.

However, I ask the Minister whether it is possible to reach some kind of compromise on this, so that in the process described, which should be able to identify matters which are relevant or unambiguously irrelevant, there should be some circle of confidence involving the inquiry and its chair’s lawyers to enable her, her team and the government lawyers to ascertain what is truly relevant while not wasting a lot of time on things that are irrelevant and without forcing some judge to make a rather difficult decision on where the parameters lie.

[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.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this is a particular example of the confusions and contradictions into which the Government have now slipped, in terms of our constitutional conventions and of maintaining public confidence in constitutional government? After all, we are being asked to accept that what the Cabinet Office decides is or is not relevant to the inquiry should be accepted, rather than what a judge who is heading the inquiry considers.

According to recent public surveys, public trust in government is now lower than it has been in my lifetime; this is not a decision that would help to restore public trust. I spent the last 24 hours leading a very interesting new Constitution Unit publication on the executive prerogative. This is, after all, an issue of executive dominance, or acceptance that the rule of law is dominant. We have had a number of arguments in this House over the last two years about executive dominance versus parliamentary scrutiny. We have also had a parallel argument about the rule of law, the role of the courts and the influence of lefty lawyers—as is so often said in the right-wing media—and of the damage that excessive judicial review was doing to decent executive government. Now, we have the Government reversing and wanting to use judicial review, which they have been arguing about limiting for a good time, so that they can defend themselves against their own inquiry.

Does the Minister not agree that, after we come out of this, this Government or the next Government need to have a very thorough examination of the relationship between our courts, the rule of law and the Executive, and between the Executive and Parliament, to determine how they will restore wider public confidence in the balance between the institutions which hold our Government together?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his thoughtful comments. Issues about the Executive and Parliament are ones that we debate. We have set up a very broad inquiry to learn the lessons and do the right things for the future. The Cabinet Office and other departments—because other departments are also party to the inquiry—have followed procedures that have worked well on a series of other inquiries. What we have found here is that there has been an issue about some unambiguously irrelevant information. That is not going to stop us making available all relevant material in relation to Covid. I think that people have just mistaken our intentions, but I am sure that it will be quickly resolved—obviously, that is my hope.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

So as not to mistake the Minister’s intentions, why not make the application not for judicial review but to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, herself, by submitting with full disclosure with a submission that certain parts of it be redacted? That is what a Government do when they have trust in the judicial chair of their own inquiry, so why not do that?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I hinted, we have been in discussion for some time, and we have tried to make progress. We have taken the view, on advice from our own King’s Counsel, that it is appropriate to seek a judicial review—so that we can get guidance on this narrow and technical point of law, particularly in the new era of communications—and that that is the sensible thing to do.

I failed to respond to an earlier question about the use of digital communications. I should repeat that this is something we debated. I made a Statement in March issuing the new guidance on the use of non-corporate communication channels, which distinguishes between things that must be recorded for posterity, and the disciplines that we as Ministers have to enter into, and the ephemera with which is not appropriate to clog up the record book. Obviously, it is early days, but I hope that that will help with these issues in the future. I also look forward to the clarity of this judicial review, into which we have entered with good faith and the expectation that it is proper, whatever might have been said by some others.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has addressed a number of issues tonight but, looking back, I am not sure that she answered many of the questions that I asked at the beginning. I shall check Hansard. To press her on one point, she was clear that the inquiry was under the Inquiries Act 2005 and all parts were being complied with. I asked her about the judicial review, and she did not really respond to that. She may not have time to reply now, and she may not know the answer, given her previous answers, but I would ask her to look at Section 21 of that Act, which says that the person who chairs an inquiry can require a person giving evidence to

“produce any other thing in his custody or under his control”.

There is quite a bit in that section about the duty to comply with any request as

“determined by the chairman of the inquiry”,

which would imply that the Government may not be fulfilling all requirements under that section of the Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at that and write to me.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I can certainly look at it. The document that I mentioned, which is on the internet, starts off by going through exactly those paragraphs of Section 21 and picking up the points that the noble Baroness has made and explaining why. Interpretation is at the heart of the judicial review. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, helpfully made clear this morning when she made some comments in opening a phase of her inquiry, we should leave that to the court, and find out how that works out. But I am very familiar with Section 21.

Ministerial Code: Investigation of Potential Breach

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister alone is the guardian of the Ministerial Code. The Prime Minister alone appoints the ethics adviser. The Prime Minister alone decides whether an alleged breach should be investigated; and whatever the outcome or conclusion of any report that is produced on a possible breach, the Prime Minister alone decides if a breach has actually occurred.

The Minister will be aware of demands and recommendations for greater independence. In the absence of such independence, and in light of the fact that so much lies with the Prime Minister, can she explain why calls for greater independence have been rejected by the Government? Will the Government publish the criteria on which the Prime Minister makes such judgments and explain today what those criteria are?

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

My Lords, the Ministerial Code sets out the standards of conduct expected of Ministers and how they discharge their duties. As the noble Baroness said, the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. That is indeed why he decides, as she has explained, but in light of advice from the independent adviser. The Prime Minister moved quickly to appoint an independent adviser, Sir Laurence Magnus, on whose advice he relies.

The noble Baroness asked why this system is not set up independently. This subject has been looked at by committees. Indeed, last year, as we discussed before, we did make some changes to the independent adviser’s powers and gave him more support. We believe that having an independent system would be a problem. An independent commission or system would amass considerable unelected power over the workings of government in somebody who does not have an elected mandate, without the checks and balances and accountabilities of elected politicians. We are here to debate, in a democratic way, circumstances that have gone on including, of course, the Home Secretary and the issue of the speed awareness course, which was the subject of this Question earlier in the week.

The criteria for investigating a breach, of course, depend on the circumstances. As the noble Baroness will know, the Ministerial Code is very wide ranging. It is the Prime Minister’s code, so he is rightly the decision-maker. The criteria for a particular investigation will depend on the issue being investigated.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this is a small issue concerning a larger problem, which is the unconstrained and unaccountable prerogative powers of the Prime Minister and the deterioration of relations between the Civil Service and Ministers, which has come up again and again in recent years. I am puzzled and disappointed by the Minister’s reply to the Leader of the Opposition. The Answer in the Commons made a very strong point of saying, “This is the Prime Minister’s code and the Prime Minister is, in effect, the judge and jury of everything that happens”.

Toward the end of the last Labour Government, there were some rather good committee reports in the Commons on whether we now needed to limit the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers. I wonder whether, if the Conservatives found themselves in opposition again, they would not perhaps wish to revive that debate. I would hope that a Labour Government—or another Government of some sort—would begin to address that problem. If the independent adviser is really independent, why does he not have the ability to start his own investigations and then present them to the Prime Minister?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will not speculate on what might happen under a different Government. I remind the noble Lord that there have been a number of reports on ethics and integrity, including from Nigel Boardman and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and, as I said recently, we will lay our responses in Parliament in due course. However, I draw the House’s attention again to Sir Laurence Magnus, who has been appointed and has set off in a robust way. His report, which I promised would come out in May, is due to be published today—it may already have been or will be any minute.

I also draw attention to the fact that we strengthened the remit of the independent adviser in 2022. Slightly contrary to what the noble Lord was saying, the adviser now has the ability to initiate an investigation under the Ministerial Code after consulting with the Prime Minister, and the normal expectation is that the Prime Minister would agree to such an investigation. We have also updated the code to include more specific references to the duty on Ministers to provide the independent adviser with information reasonably necessary for carrying out the role. As I said before, we have also strengthened the arrangements for the office of the independent adviser, providing him with a dedicated secretariat of civil servants. However, I come back to the point I made before to the noble Baroness: this must be elective—it has to be democratic. That is why the Prime Minister decides on these matters.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am struggling here. It seems to be a basic principle that justice should not only be done but seen to be done. These processes seem so arcane and opaque that I wonder whether the noble Baroness can assure us how this process passes that test—or does it not apply to the Ministerial Code?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I simply do not agree with the right reverend Prelate. The Prime Minister has been clear that professionalism, integrity and accountability are core values of the Government. A number of inquiries have been set up by the Prime Minister. He has moved quickly to set them up and to take steps when they have been completed. Most recently, he moved very quickly on the matter of the Home Secretary, which was causing a distraction earlier in the week. He consulted the independent adviser, who advised that on this occasion further investigation was not necessary, and the Prime Minister accepted that advice. As I said before, we need to be very careful to ensure that the Prime Minister has ultimate responsibility for the Ministerial Code. He reissued it in December when he came to power and he has made it clear that it is important that it is followed.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

Perhaps I can just ask for clarification from the noble Baroness. There was some discussion in 2018 about whether the Ministerial Code mandated Ministers to behave in a certain way. This related to compliance with international law. The noble Baroness will remember a certain Mr Brandon Lewis, who said in the House of Commons that he intended to break international law

“in a very specific and limited way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/20; col. 509.]

That led to the resignation of a top civil servant and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. However, it did not lead to the resignation of the then Attorney-General, who is the subject of this particular complaint. The young lady is not fit for high office in any case, but surely if the Court of Appeal says that the Ministerial Code does mandate compliance, how on earth can the Government justify any variation?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I was on the Back Benches when this important situation occurred in 2018, but I would say that the Ministerial Code is a matter for the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s judgment, as the noble Baroness said. I think she was trying to make a point about the current Home Secretary. However, I would say that we should allow the current Home Secretary to get on with her job. The distraction of the last week has been considerable. She is trying to do the right thing in a whole series of areas, from public order to immigration. She has apologised, expressed her regret on the matter of the speed awareness course and paid the fine for speeding. Some feel that that issue has been conflated and is a bit of a distraction. She needs to be given the opportunity to get on. The Prime Minister has looked into the matter and she has written at great length to explain the exact circumstances of it. You always end up looking at an individual case, as the noble Baroness did, but I am clear that this is the right approach.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Clause 16 has always been the most offensive clause in the Bill because it was giving excessive power to the Executive and no power to Parliament. But on the horse, if I may put it that way, of the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who really has provided enormous assistance to us during the passage of the Bill, and knowing therefore that the assimilated law to which we are now directed will also be subject to the provisions to which he has already succeeded—twice over now—in getting the acceptance of the House, we are protected. Because of our protection under the noble and learned Lord’s amendments, I am happy with this amendment not being moved. I joined the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington in signing it but, on the basis only of the work that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has provided, I am prepared to join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in not moving this amendment.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made. It might make sense if I start with Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would remove this clause from the Bill altogether. I am very glad that he will not move it; I think that is the right approach.

The powers to revoke or replace are needed to enable the Government to overhaul EU laws in secondary legislation across different sectors of the economy. We know that some of them are outdated or unduly burdensome. Better and simpler regulation, perhaps with less complex bureaucracy, can increase productivity growth, which has been slow and a huge problem for our economy. It can also help enterprise and assist SMEs, which suffer more than anyone else from red tape.

We worked together in this House on the Procurement Bill, which was an important step in getting rid of retained EU law and helping small business. We can do so much more without losing necessary protections. I speak as someone who has worked in business; businesses are always being blamed for liking regulation, but there are changes that we can make.

The REUL dashboard has identified over 4,800 pieces of retained EU law across 16 departments. Some will be repealed by the revocation schedule, as we have heard today; others reflect—I think this is important—international obligations, which will remain in place. There are many areas where reform can be beneficial and bring about the post-Brexit boost that we have promised. However, the Government’s retained EU law substance review in 2021 highlighted a distinct lack of subordinate legislation-making powers to remove retained EU law from the UK statute book, because in the past we have relied on Brussels for regulatory powers to drive change. It is now vital that we have a power capable of acting on wide-ranging retained EU law across different policy areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[A noble Lord]

Minister!

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is nice to be popular so that we can all go home. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his Amendment 50, and I am glad to be debating with him again.

The amendment would place a number of conditions relating to workers’ rights that UK Ministers or devolved authorities would have to meet when intending to use the powers under Clauses 13, 14, 16 and 17 on retained EU law. That includes satisfying themselves that workers’ protections and employment rights would be maintained and that proposed new regulations would not conflict with existing international labour agreements.

The new clause would also introduce a new procedural requirement that Ministers would have to follow in order to be eligible to exercise the power. That includes seeking advice from relevant stakeholders, including ACAS and relevant trade unions, as well as publishing a report addressing specific points around workers’ rights and employment protections for the new regulations. The new clause would significantly delay and impact opportunities to review and reform any retained EU law, which might have an impact on working regulations.

I should say straightaway, as my noble friend Lord Callanan already has, that this Government have no intention of abandoning our strong record on workers’ rights, and nor are the delegated powers intended to undermine the UK’s high standards on workers’ rights.

Our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides for stronger protections for workers. We have one of the highest minimum wages in Europe. Moreover, UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave compared with the EU requirement of four weeks, and we provide a year of maternity leave while the EU minimum maternity leave is just 14 weeks. Furthermore, on 10 May the Secretary of State committed to strengthening employment law, saving businesses around £1 billion a year from the reform of certain EU labour laws while safeguarding the rights of workers. These proposals do not remove rights or change entitlements but instead remove unnecessary bureaucracy in the way that these rights or entitlements operate, allowing business to benefit from the additional freedoms that we have through Brexit. The proposed conditions on workers’ rights in the amendment are unnecessary, frankly, and would lead to a parallel call for provisions in other important regulatory areas to be excluded from vital reforms, thus undermining the whole purpose of Clause 16, which I stress is time limited.

Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP: Resignation Letter

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Prime Minister has been clear that the Civil Service is vital to the work of the Government. The Government greatly value the work of civil servants who, together with Ministers, are working to deliver for the British people. The Prime Minister has accepted the resignation of the right honourable Dominic Raab, the former Deputy Prime Minister, following the findings of Adam Tolley KC, in a published exchange of letters.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome much of the Minister’s reply, but does she accept that the emerging pattern we see is not civil servants conspiring against their Ministers? The pattern documented is of Conservative Ministers bullying their staff, with three examples in the current Parliament, two of which led to resignations and one of which should have led to a resignation.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I cannot accept the conclusion of the noble Lord. Of course, as the Prime Minister said, we need to learn from these cases

“how to better handle such matters better in future”,

and a credible complaints process needs to have the confidence of Ministers and civil servants alike. Work is under way on that. Ministers and civil servants work together on difficult issues every day and, in the main, very constructively.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, as someone who headed four separate departments, all under Conservative Governments, in my experience overwhelmingly the Civil Service was loyal and gave exceptional advice to the Government. Would it not be better to look at the quality of special advisers, who sometimes exhibit neither of those qualities?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Having worked as an adviser, a Minister and a civil servant, I would say that the constitution has these different parts. Political advisers are important and helpful. In most cases, they work well with the Civil Service.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, is it not important to recognise that Ministers have no power to select, reward, promote or demote officials working for them? Likewise, officials should not have the power effectively to dismiss Ministers for whom they work, least of all by making anonymous complaints against them. I was very fortunate, like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that my officials were a joy to work with throughout, but some Ministers have perceived some officials to be reluctant to implement their policies and have had to try to find ways of dealing with that, and some officials have perceived Ministers’ responses trying to get them to do that too abrasive, demanding and rude. I sympathise with those who had to duck telephones thrown by Gordon Brown or to deal with Richard Crossman, who said in his diaries that when he found officials reluctant to do his will:

“I bullied them and made a fool of them in front of others, quite often their subordinates”.


I suspect such an approach was counterproductive. Does the Minister agree that it is up to the electorate or elected superiors to get rid of Ministers who cannot deliver, not officials?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Ministers are of course part of the process of democratic election. I agree with much of what my noble friend said.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, in his letter of resignation, the former Deputy Prime Minister said that the inquiry into his actions

“set a dangerous precedent for the conduct of good government”,

and set the “threshold for bullying” too low. The Prime Minister in response said that we should learn to manage these matters better in future. Does the Minister agree that the threat to good government comes not from the inquiry but from bullying Ministers, that the threshold which needs to be raised is that of ministerial behaviour, and that the lesson to be learned is that Ministers should behave themselves and not bully their staff?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Ministers are required to behave themselves and do behave themselves. The code includes the statement:

“Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated”.


Complaints are investigated, as we have been discussing.

[Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)]

In his report, Mr Tolley took care to anonymise all the complainants. Reading the report, it was not possible to see who had complained. In his resignation letter, the former Deputy Prime Minister mentioned a Gibraltar negotiation and then someone leaked the name of the British ambassador to Spain to the Telegraph. Will His Majesty’s Government condemn that leak?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I read the Tolley report. He took great care on this matter. Where there are specific allegations, it can be very difficult to guarantee anonymity in a process like this. It is important for fairness that the full details of the complaint are made. Although the Deputy Prime Minister stepped down and there were findings of concern, there were also areas where Mr Tolley took a different view.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The Minister is choosing her words carefully, and she has our sympathy for that, but the extraordinarily poor grace of Mr Raab’s resignation letter means that this case has failed to clarify the standards expected of Ministers.

“The conclusion of the Raab inquiry has done nothing to help other ministers who misunderstand what professional behaviour looks like avoid getting into the same position”.


Those are not my words but the words of the Institute for Government. Is it not time that the Government introduced an independent adviser with the power to initiate investigations? Should there not also be an independent review of the effectiveness of the Ministerial Code?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I should point out that in his letter, Dominic Raab, who did some good things as a Secretary of State, said:

“I am genuinely sorry for any unintended stress or offence that any officials felt”.


An independent adviser, Mr Tolley, was asked to conduct the inquiry because at that time there was no ethics adviser, as the noble Baroness knows. Sir Laurie Magnus has since been appointed. He can initiate, but he has to get the approval of the Prime Minister. As we discussed on Tuesday, the arrangements have been changed and the process shows that, where there is need for an inquiry, an inquiry takes place.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, looking around, I see many noble Lords who have had more successful ministerial experiences than mine, but none who lasted 21 years. My experience is that you do not get the best out of civil servants by shouting at them. There is no organised conspiracy to frustrate the will of Ministers, but some Ministers may see as obstruction civil servants doing their job by pointing out the adverse consequences of certain policy options. If we have a review of the complaints procedure, can we debate it in this House so the plethora of ex-Ministers, ex-civil servants and others can contribute to that review?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think almost no Secretary of State has been as successful as my noble friend, and he has helped here as well by joining the Front Bench. What we debate in this House is a matter for the usual channels, but we are getting on and work is under way on the complaints process.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My experience, having spoken to a number of Ministers, is that a couple of them have said things like, “You won’t get this past the Civil Service”. What does that mean?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not dare to speculate on what the thing in question was. The Civil Service has a fundamental principle of political impartiality so, in considering proposals, that is something they have to look at. If something is improper, then the good civil servant—I used to be one—will point that out to the Minister of the day, and it might be that that is what was meant. Obviously Ministers are advised by civil servants on matters of policy, and it is clear that civil servants sometimes disagree with Ministers.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

I once asked a senior civil servant who were their favourite Ministers to work with. In confidence, they said Nicholas Ridley and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—which in itself is an interesting combination. I asked why, and they said it was because you knew where you stood with them and they were decisive. I think that is the definition of a good Minister. I have never met a civil servant who was disloyal, but I have met people who say that they would rather not receive direct instructions via a spad and would rather speak to a Minister. I think that is not necessarily because of the quality of the spad, but because of the method of avoiding talking to civil servants. Does the Minister agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. These are the sort of points that come up when we debate these things. Good Ministers decide clearly, and civil servants and political spads provide advice, which can be helpful. Spads can indeed be helpful to civil servants, as I remember.

Parliamentary Democracy in the United Kingdom

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

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

I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has secured this important and extremely wide-ranging debate. We should spend more time debating these important issues.

I start by congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield on his excellent maiden speech. Lichfield is actually one of my favourite cathedrals, so he is most welcome; may he continue to make insightful contributions to the House. I was particularly glad that he reminded us of the Christian tradition of parliamentary democracy, and of the importance of freedom to practise different faiths.

Turning to the question of the day, my assessment is that, overall, UK parliamentary democracy is in a good state. Of course, like everything else political, it—UK parliamentary democracy—is a human construct, hence failures of one sort or another occur from time to time, and some have been mentioned, but the overall verdict should be a favourable one. I do not agree with the noble Baroness; like my noble friend Lord Hannan, I feel she should be careful about trying to draw parallels with 1930s Germany.

How has the situation that we are in come about? I am tempted to speculate that there may be some intrinsic virtue in the British character but my sober conclusion is that we have benefited from the virtues of evolution as opposed to adopting the follies of revolution as is sometimes espoused elsewhere—advocates of which are not unknown even within these hallowed walls. To sum things up I would like to quote Winston Churchill, who once said that:

“democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/1947; col. 207.]

Given that position, the need is to protect what we have that is good, to strive to improve it where possible and to adapt to circumstances.

There are, of course, other democratic nations, some of which are, like us, parliamentary democracies, although some are not. All truly democratic nations promote the principles of free and fair elections, the rule of law, a free press and the role of civil society. Autocracies are normally opposed to all these values that we hold so dear—and what a tragic mess that can lead to, as we see in Russia today.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has rightly mentioned the important role of elections in a functioning democracy, although I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, or my noble friend Lord Balfe that proportional representation would be better. Moreover, this Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to continue to support the first past the post voting system. We believe that this system is robust, secure and well understood by voters, providing strong and clear accountability.

My noble friend Lady Noakes was on great form. She was right to welcome an election that allowed us to get Brexit done—because that was the will of the people, despite strongly held views in many quarters, including in many parts of this House, on all sides. She is right to warn that the House should not become a House of opposition to an elected Government. This House is a very important part of the constitution.

My noble friend Lady Noakes also mentioned the recent repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I believe that, by returning to the status quo ante, a Prime Minister will once again be able to call an election at a time of their choosing and avoid the parliamentary gridlock that caused so much trouble during the Brexit process.

As many have said, Members of Parliament as elected representatives have a central role in our system, advocating on behalf of and representing the views of their constituents. Both Houses carefully scrutinise and hold the Government to account and, through transparent engagement with Parliament, the Government facilitate that effective and important scrutiny work.

These are rights and principles that apply to all parts of the UK, whose constituent parts are represented in our parliamentary system, which is defined by a number of important elements. Under the UK’s parliamentary system, the ability of the Government to command the confidence of the House of Commons is the fundamental principle that enables government and Parliament to operate smoothly.

Ours is a representative democracy; because all individuals within the UK are represented, they are incentivised to participate in the electoral process. Government Ministers are, of course, drawn from both Houses, as I am lucky enough to know. The majority of Ministers are drawn from the Commons and not only accountable to the nation as a whole but required to address the local concerns of individuals represented by their individual MP.

Our parliamentary democracy is effective because it is grounded in tradition while being sufficiently flexible and adaptable to the circumstances of the day. This system allows for the development of policy and the passage of legislation under the careful scrutiny of Parliament when there is a majority in favour of the Government’s programme. Our parliamentary democracy allows for a high level of accountability and transparency by various mechanisms, of which noble Lords will be well aware, and to the success of which individuals in this House certainly contribute.

Our House—the Lords—as it is now would not be invented by anyone seeking to design a constitution, and over time we are likely to see further evolution of our constitutional arrangements. Until then, we perform a useful role in providing the scrutiny and accountability I mentioned. I think particular strengths are our scrutiny of Bills and SIs, including the revision of important detailed and complex clauses, and our respective committees, because they are the most fruitful area of engagement with the media; we play a crucial role in accurately informing the press.

I have been struck also by the strength the House gets from diverse specialisms: from different walks of life, from age—young and old, from geography and the wisdom of mature politicians of different persuasions who can help Governments to learn from past mistakes. In a very useful intervention, my noble friend Lord Shinkwin highlighted the role that individuals like himself, with his background and disability, can play in the House. He demonstrates that all the time, and I thank him for his support today.

There is an eclectic mix which brings much benefit, contributing in my view to our stable constitution. However, I must stress that in doing our work it is important that we recognise the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected Chamber. I believe the dilution of this is one of the problems with Gordon Brown’s proposed reforms, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, touched on briefly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned corruption in her opening remarks. I do not believe that this country is systematically corrupt, but corruption does pose a threat to all democracies, the economy and security. Corruption threatens to erode trust in our institutions, which is why the Government are taking steps all the time to address these threats. I refer her, and I think she has had a debate on this subject, to the Home Office-led anti-corruption strategy and to the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which is very important and on which I have the pleasure of sitting.

It has been a good debate and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and everyone else who has spoken. I am sorry I have not been able to refer to everybody, but we have had contributions on everything from housing to water, to the more obvious subjects. I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth—that surprised him—about the importance of trust and honesty in public life, saying what you know to be true in Parliament and elsewhere, and on the value of leadership skills, both for Ministers and for senior civil servants. As a Cabinet Office Minister and as a former director of well-managed international companies, I spend a good deal of time encouraging leadership and skills training, and trying to move things forward.

When assessing the strengths of our parliamentary democracy, one of the greatest is our ability to evolve and develop over time, to meet and resolve different challenges. This flexibility is what makes it so effective, and I was interested that the noble Baroness picked up on this point about flexibility, going forward.

To sum up, we have a vibrant parliamentary democracy; we should be proud of that but, as always, we must strive to maintain and if possible improve on the present position.

List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt for the Minister, the Question is in two parts, about first the ministerial register of interests, and secondly the Ministerial Code, and my question is specifically about the Ministerial Code. She will know that finally the Prime Minister has appointed an ethics adviser. Officially the adviser’s title is “the independent adviser on ministerial interests”, but I ask whether she considers the job title somewhat misleading. Only the Prime Minister can decide to initiate an investigation and only the Prime Minister has a veto as the sole arbiter of whether the code has been broken. Either the adviser has the independence that the job title implies, or at minimum should be able to investigate. In the interests of integrity and clarity, should the job title not be changed to “the Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial interests”? It is very hard to see where the independence applies. Will the Minister tell the House whether she considers that change to be appropriate?

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

I do not think we should make the change that the noble Baroness suggests. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the terms of reference for the role of the independent adviser were strengthened in May 2022 when the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, was in the post. The changes made expanded the powers of the independent adviser, in particular giving the office holder the ability to initiate investigations. Where the independent adviser considers that an alleged breach of the Ministerial Code warrants further investigation and that has not already been referred to him, he may initiate an investigation. Before doing so, he will consult the Prime Minister, who will normally give his consent.

I am very pleased that we now have the independent adviser and, for completeness, I should revert to one or two of the points made in response to this Question when it was asked yesterday in the other place. The list of Ministers’ interests was published by the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests on 19 April. The list is not exhaustive but is designed to be read in conjunction with the register of interests in this House, which we all complete. I am very happy to answer further questions in relation to the list of Ministers’ interests, which has now been published in relation to all 120 Ministers.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, can I therefore ask the Minister a further question in relation to the list of Ministers’ interests? Does she agree that, in the interests of accountability, it needs to be updated regularly on the same monthly basis as the register of Members’ interests rather than a couple of times a year at best, as has recently been the case? More generally, does she accept that the Civil Service provides advice to Ministers with impartiality and integrity, and to argue that this is not the case, as some Ministers and former Ministers have done in recent days, is unfair, untrue and damaging to Civil Service morale?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord asks why the register is not updated on a monthly basis in the same way as the register of interests that applies in our House and in the other place. It is important to understand that they are different. The list published by the independent adviser is a list: it is published every six months as the public endpoint of an ongoing process. Ministers’ interests are declared on appointment and on an ongoing basis to Permanent Secretaries, and are reviewed by the independent adviser. Any changes have to be notified in real time but, because of the nature of ministerial office, the number of new interests is normally fairly small at any point in time, so it makes sense to publish a new list every six months. There was a delay because of changes in government, which the noble Lord will be well aware of.

I started life as a civil servant and I have worked as a Minister with many brilliant civil servants, a view I know is shared by my colleagues. I believe in an independent Civil Service, and its fearless and impartial advice is vital to this country.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not true that the so-called independent adviser is still a creature of the Prime Minister? The Committee on Standards in Public Life made a number of recommendations to improve the situation, most of which were not adopted. Will the Government reconsider those recommendations from the committee and adopt them so that this position could be seen to be genuinely independent and not a creature of the Prime Minister?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The Government’s work on reforms to strengthen ethics and integrity in central government is now nearing conclusion and we hope to publish our response soon. There have been a number of reports, including Upholding Standards in Public Life, the recommendations of Sir Nigel Boardman’s report on supply chain finance, and PACAC’s fourth report, so we can look forward to a response.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the belated publication of the latest version of ministerial interests. There is a related document which we are also impatiently awaiting, which is the Cabinet Manual. The Government have promised that they will publish it within the foreseeable future, and I understand that there is already a draft in Whitehall. Can the Minister give us any indication of when that Cabinet Manual draft will be complete and will be published?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Work is in progress and it will be published in due course.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

The Tolley report into the former Deputy Prime Minister spends a lot of time listing the sources he used to define “bullying”, but concludes that his role

“is not to determine as a matter of law what ‘bullying’ means for the purpose of the Ministerial Code”.

Given that the former Deputy Prime Minister disputes that he was a bully, and that other Ministers have supported him, does the Minister think it would be wise for the Prime Minister to amend the Ministerial Code to put his definition of bullying into it, so there is no ambiguity going forward?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Since the noble Lord mentions the former Deputy Prime Minister, I remind the House that he made an important contribution to the country, not least by his work during the pandemic. On a personal note, he supported me and indeed the Bench opposite on justice for retail workers facing harassment. He felt obliged to resign following the Tolley report, and I respect his decision. The noble Lord may have seen the letter to the former Deputy Prime Minister from the Prime Minister. It said,

“it is clear that there have been shortcomings in the historic process that have negatively affected everyone involved. We should learn from this how to better handle such matters in future”.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, the Tolley report, which looked into the matter in great detail, referred to intimidation rather than bullying as the cause of the conduct which led the former Deputy Prime Minister to resign. There is a difference between intimidation and bullying, and that should be recognised.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not think I have a great deal to add to the Prime Minister’s reply, other than to underline the point that has been made about how we learn to better handle such matters in future. The points that noble Lords have made are, of course, relevant to that.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, we have a code of conduct that governs the behaviour of special advisers, the Civil Service Code and the Ministerial Code. In most other environments, those in authority in organisations have the protection of the whistleblowing Act. Has anybody considered—perhaps my noble friend could ask the independent adviser on ethics to consider it —how we are making good the gap that exists, potentially, where there are not those protections for those in office when one might need to blow the whistle?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I obviously come from a business background, where whistleblowing is a very important and helpful constraint on wrongful behaviour. I will certainly reflect on my noble friend’s point about whistleblowing in the work that we do following up on these issues.

Emergency Alert System: Fujitsu

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question of which I have given private notice, I refer to my entry in the register as an unpaid member of the Post Office Horizon compensation advisory board.

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

Fujitsu has had a small role in the development of the UK’s emergency alert system, initially providing a subject matter expert to support early development by DCMS. Emergency alerts are a critical tool in our toolkit for warning people whose lives are at risk.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. I have no objection at all to the emergency alert that is to be sent to our mobile telephones on Sunday: it is good for the resilience that the House of Lords Select Committee on risk called for a year or so ago. But why was Fujitsu granted the contract? Fujitsu’s Horizon system caused the sub-postmasters of this country to be shamefully accused of things that they had not done. Some went to prison, some took their own lives and all those accused were humiliated in the eyes of their own communities. Fujitsu, which knew perfectly well what it was doing, has said not a single word of apology. This is already costing the Government hundreds of millions, potentially more. Why has Fujitsu not been taken off the government procurement list?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My noble friend and I agree that the impact of the Horizon scandal on postmasters and their families is utterly horrendous; we used to work together on this when I was on the Back Benches. That is why the Government have set up an inquiry, much encouraged by my noble friend, to get to the bottom of what went wrong and ensure that it can never happen again, as well as providing compensation for those affected.

All government contracts are awarded in line with procurement regulations and transparency guidelines, and that goes for the contract on the alerts. As noble Lords would expect, robust security measures are in place as part of the procurement process.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for his relentless campaigning over a period of 13 years. Otherwise, the sub-postmasters would not have received any form of justice. Fujitsu’s track record is quite appalling; the noble Lord mentioned that it has never apologised. It was described as giving unsatisfactory and inaccurate evidence in the case brought by the sub-postmasters. The NHS terminated two contracts with it back in 2008-09, then Fujitsu sued the NHS for £700 million and did not settle for 10 years. On exactly what basis do the Government judge Fujitsu to be fit and proper to hold this contract?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will make one preliminary point: Fujitsu has been fully co-operating with the postmasters inquiry. I also emphasise that there is no link between the small amount of work that Fujitsu has done for DCMS and the Cabinet Office and the work done for the Post Office.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am so grateful to the Minister for setting out the issue about the regulations and security. But in addition to security concerns, there are basic decency and morality concerns. How do people in this country feel about contracts being given to this company in the interim, while this inquiry is pending?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have explained what we are doing about the inquiry. The grounds for the exclusion of bidders from public procurement procedures are set out in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. These rules set out the circumstances in which bidders must or may be excluded from the public procurement process. We have to follow those processes. The Procurement Bill, which was brought forward by this Government and debated extensively in this House, and is now being considered elsewhere, strengthens the grounds for exclusion, but we have proceeded with this contract on alerts. I emphasise the value of these alerts in warning and informing people where we have serious problems.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can the Minister tell the House how much Fujitsu is being paid for this contract and how many other ongoing procurement contracts there are with Fujitsu?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not have information on other procurement contracts but I can tell the noble Lord that, in the year that has just finished, we paid Fujitsu £1.6 million for the alerts contract. If he looks on Contracts Finder, which is one of the transparency mechanisms that we have, he will see that the range of the contract is from £1.6 million to £5 million, but at the moment we have used Fujitsu for only the £1.6 million that I have outlined.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, that is £1.6 million too much. Does my noble friend accept that when she speaks from the Dispatch Box she is, of course, speaking for the whole Government, right across the board? It is completely wrong—I would say immoral—for any department of government to pay money to a company whose actions, carelessness and downright stupidity in some respects have led to the deaths of British subjects, to the incarceration of others and to the misery of many. Were it not for my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, the situation would be far worse.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We have to follow due process. An inquiry is rightly taking place into the Horizon and Post Office scandal. In the meantime, it is important that procurement processes are open, that people are allowed to bid and that awards are made in accordance with the rules. I emphasise the point that I have already made: there is no link between the work that Fujitsu has done for DCMS and the Cabinet Office and the work done for the Post Office.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the London Resilience Forum. The emergency alert system is a really good idea. In fact, it is such a good idea that the Cabinet Office first successfully tested the use of emergency text alerts in 2013. Why has it taken a decade to hold a nationwide emergency alert system test? Can the Minister confirm how quickly the test will be evaluated and how soon the Government think this potentially life-saving system can be rolled out?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her support. Indeed, I think this alert system appeared in the Labour Party manifesto; we have had cross-party support for it. We have set up the test in consultation with various affected parties, which obviously means that it has had to be done properly—with motoring organisations, for example, and for vulnerable groups. That has taken time. The test is now taking place on Sunday. My hope is that it will be successful. Just to reassure the noble Baroness, we had trials in East Sussex and Reading, and the feedback we had from the people involved in the test was very positive, with 88% of people wanting to keep going and encouraging the test. We need to move things forward, which is exactly what we are doing.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I understand the point about following procurement procedures, but can we try a different tack? What would Fujitsu have to do to make it excludable from these procedures?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

All of this arises from the horrendous case of the Post Office, which I have studied over many years and feel equally strongly about. That process is continuing; Fujitsu is continuing to answer questions. As to putting companies on excluded lists, I have tried to explain what the arrangements are under regulations and that changes are coming forward in the Procurement Bill. Where companies co-operate and a finding has not been found against them, it is important that we treat them fairly. This is a country that believes in that.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Williams inquiry is still taking evidence in late winter this year, so the chances of it reporting even this time next year are probably slim. During that time, how many other contracts will Fujitsu be bidding for and winning? Surely the Minister can see that there are grounds here for suspending Fujitsu’s ability to bid on government contracts until such time as the report has had a chance to be published.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not have information on how many contracts Fujitsu plans to bid on, or indeed whether it will be successful in bidding for those contracts. All I can say is that we are pursuing the Post Office side of things extremely keenly, and I think we have moved from a very bad place into a better place with the plans for compensation. I note what has been said about Fujitsu, but I emphasise that the small contract we are talking about is very separate from the large and troublesome contract that we have all discussed on other occasions when we have been debating the awful circumstances of the postmasters, which, frankly, is probably the worst thing I have ever dealt with while I have been in government.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The Minister prays in aid the process of procurement, and that is quite right; let us leave aside for a moment the moral cases that some people have made. Is it not a standard part of procurement processes to have regard to performance on previous contracts by bidders? Other contracts, for example with the NHS, have been mentioned earlier in the comments this afternoon. If that is not part of our procurement process, surely it should be. If it is part of our procurement process, what on earth must the other bidders have been like?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that we do not always get as many bidders as I would like in procurement, and one of the things we are trying to do in the procurement area is to broaden procurement so that we get more bidders. Having said that, of course he is right that those who are looking at contracts, both within departments and across government— because we have central assistance for procurement now—look at the track record of companies, but you have to do that in a fair way.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse what the Minister said about the emergency alert concept being excellent. The Minister will not necessarily be aware that I was one of the MPs who represented a number of the sub-postmasters, including one who was forced out of the locality in disgrace. His life, his wife’s life and his family’s life were completely destroyed and ruined, whereas he was obviously completely innocent. What really grates—I am sure the Minister understands this, but it would be good to hear her reinforce it—is: why has Fujitsu not in any way apologised?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I sympathise with the point made by my noble friend. That is for Fujitsu, of course, and the process of looking at the awful history of the postmasters is still not finished. I agree with him that it can be helpful to say sorry, but that is a matter for Fujitsu. I am sorry that we are not talking much about the alerts, on which I have every answer under the sun. I will try to move things forward more broadly and, on the postmasters, to encourage the progress of the inquiry. We are all longing for the result of that.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register and the fact that I have been campaigning for these emergency alerts to happen for a number of years. I think the first alerts were used in a number of countries way back in 2012. The Cabinet Office trialled them in 2013, and then nothing happened for virtually a decade. The system is proven in Australia, where a number of people were saved from dying in fires, and in India people’s lives were saved from floods and so on. This is very important, but emergency alerts require public trust in the authorities. I hope the Minister acknowledges that this small part of the contract that has gone to Fujitsu will undermine that trust. What further steps will the Government take to improve trust in the emergency alert system going forward?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not accept that the small addition of Fujitsu’s work in this area negates this very important piece of work, which the noble Lord was obviously involved in and agrees with. We need to get on with it. He is right that the US, Canada, the Netherlands and Japan already have such a system. We did have something of a system, as he will know, because we used texts during Covid, but we found that their coverage was not good enough. That is another reason why we have been spurred to move faster. Obviously, I am involved in this area and taking a big interest. I like to get on with things, as he knows. I very much hope that the test will work and that if we have a national crisis of the kind we very much hope not to have, these alerts will be helpful. They will also be useful locally, because the COBRA unit co-ordinating them will find them useful on occasions of local flooding and storms. At the moment, we get alerts but it is more haphazard than it needs to be.