Whistleblowers

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

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

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

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

Watchdogs (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hollick and his committee on a most excellent report. I was not a member of the committee, but sometimes I felt I was a lone wolf in challenging HS2 and other things over their costs over the past 10 years because there was no regulator. What struck me was that, on page 5 of the report, near the bottom, there is an interesting paragraph which says:

“Ministers and Departments responsible for specific regulators should be subject to scrutiny … the Committee was disappointed by the Department for Business and Trade’s limited engagement”.


I think that is probably putting it mildly. It probably did not turn up at all. The same applies to the Department for Transport in my fights with it. I have come to the conclusion that there may be a difference between the way that regulators can regulate commercial companies and the way that they try, sometimes successfully, to regulate government departments.

In the time available, I shall concentrate on the Department for Transport. It has sat back and seen the capital cost of HS2 go up from £37 billion to £180 billion. That is quite a jump over 10 years. When you try to challenge it, it all gets very difficult. I tried the PAC and the National Audit Office, and they were busy, as one might expect. So, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to ask him to investigate whether Ministers had complied with paragraph 1.3 of the Ministerial Code by failing to give an accurate and truthful account to Parliament, knowingly misleading Parliament and failing to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public. The answer to all of those was no. Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, instead of doing what I asked him to do, asked the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Transport to respond. Unsurprisingly, she said everything was fine—but she would because was it her department I was challenging.

Then I was told by the Cabinet Secretary that he could do nothing unless the Prime Minister agreed. The Prime Minister at that stage was Boris Johnson, who liked HS2, so there was a circle of nobody doing anything at all and just letting this thing flounder until, finally, the Treasury was persuaded that my costs were likely to be closer to what was going to happen than those the Department for Transport was producing, and the Prime Minister then cancelled most of HS2.

Whether we think that is a good thing or bad thing does not really matter, but it demonstrates that there does not seem to be any way of challenging the Department for Transport unless it is through Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, that might be a good idea, but you have got to get Parliament to do it, and that is quite hard work. My preference would be for the House of Lords to be able to do it as well as the House of Commons because we have a bit more time.

This is a good report. I think there are many other bits of regulation that one could talk about—for example, nuclear power stations, the Office of Rail and Road, which does not look at road safety, and many things like that. I think an office of regulatory performance would be a very good start, and I hope that when my noble friend responds she will give it an amber, if not a green, light.

Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and to congratulate him on winning a place in the ballot and on his very interesting speech. I shall come back to the issue of the support from the Government that seemed to come yesterday, which is rather good.

I and many other noble Lords have had concerns about lithium-ion batteries for a long time. I am honorary president of the United Kingdom Maritime Pilots’ Association. At its AGM a couple of years ago, a retired pilot gave a presentation about a ship a few miles off the coast of the Netherlands that was carrying several hundred lithium-ion battery cars for export to somewhere in the Far East. One of the cars caught fire. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, says, that is quite possible. The frightening thing is that the fire from these cars goes downwards, hits the floor, then goes sideways and of course, the fire says to its next-door neighbour, “Do you want to join me?” In the end, the whole ship caught fire. Worse still, the emissions from the fire were heavier than air, so they affected the lifeboat crew, who by that time were trying to save the crew and possibly the ship. As far as I know, the crew were saved. The ship sank.

That confirmed to me that there is no way of putting these fires out, as the noble Lord said: seawater, freshwater—it makes no difference. Then there were reports of a fire in a multi-storey car park at Luton Airport a year or two later. The local fire brigade said that it had nothing to do with lithium-ion. I thought, “Do I believe them?” Of course, everybody thinks that lithium-ion batteries are the answer to our green agenda and not having to use diesel and petrol in our vehicles, but we have to make sure that they are safe. This Bill is a really good attempt to ensure that the product used in these things is safe. Also, the London Fire Brigade persuaded TfL to ban e-scooters from the Underground because, as the noble Lord said, there have been a number of instances of e-scooter batteries catching fire on the Underground, which is clearly highly undesirable.

That, of course, leads on to the attempts many of us have been making over the last few years to persuade government not only to introduce some product regulation, as the noble Lord’s Bill attempts to do, but to link that with how these things are used. A lot of people like using scooters, for example. Some noble Lords may not agree on this, but I love using scooters— the legal ones, of course—and I have an e-bike. However, we do not want to be seen to be contravening the law every time we use them, because we do not know whether the batteries are safe as they do not have the conformity stamp, for example. So there is a lot of work to be done on this. This Bill and my noble friend’s Bill, which we heard about yesterday, are essential parts of getting the conformity issues correct.

There is the parallel side, which probably comes under transport, of making sure that the people who use these things use only batteries that are sound and that they comply with the law on riding on pavements, which we will no doubt be debating next week. However, on this Bill and the issue of conformity, it is terribly important that the whole thing be seen to be done properly. For example, to judge by the report on the Grenfell Tower fire, the insulation clearly was not done properly. It is fine saying that there is a stamp, but if it is not properly delivered on, that does not help. At the moment, I remain to be convinced that lithium-ion is the answer to everything that people say that it should be. I do not like petrol or diesel cars either—I would rather have cycle power—but there we are.

We also need regulation as to what size of batteries are used where. Two or three months ago, your Lordships’ House debated a regulation that allows batteries in freight bicycles, if we can call them that—you see them on the streets quite often—to have double the power output. I remember asking the Minister why we need double the power output in cargo bikes. The Minister replied that it would enable them to carry bigger loads. But are the brakes tested? He said, “If you want to get up the hill to Hampstead Heath, you need power”. But what about coming down? You have to be able to stop. It seemed a rather odd regulation that was brought in for no particular reason. I am sure the cargo people are very happy, but it does not help safety or anything else.

I hope that the new legislation that my noble friend has promised is going to cover everything that we have talked about today, and that she will encourage her colleagues in the Department for Transport, and I suppose the Home Office, to look at the other side of the coin and make sure that people comply, with enough people to enforce and inspect users, and take them to the cleaners if they do not—otherwise, we will have failed.

The fires that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and I have mentioned are frightening. People do not know about them because they are kept under wraps. London Fire Brigade has done a great job warning people, but the solution is not to stop people using these things; the solution is to have a conformed battery that works and is safe. It must be safe and it must be seen by independent regulators to be safe—otherwise, it will not have done its job.

I was interested in the Minister’s letter to noble Lords on 5 September about the introduction of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. It is a good start, but it estimates that

“at least 300,000 UK businesses must adhere to product safety legislation”.

How many people will inspect that and check that the legislation works and that people are complying? I am not really expecting my noble friend to answer that today, but she can try.

We have to tackle non-compliance and make sure that, to start with, the regulations do the job that they are intended to do, rather than giving in to the manufacturers’ pressure that it will be all right on the night and we will have a better model next year. Next year’s problem may be different or it may be the same, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will be looking at whether the current Bill covers the future. We have to get this right and make sure it is tight. If Grenfell is not a good example, I do not know what is. I wish the Bill well.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

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

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

Regulator of Community Interest Companies

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of a CIC. We were trying to buy a village shop in Cornwall which was about to close down and we found the regulations and the structure very easy to operate and it worked very well. But there are an awful lot of other pubs and shops in Cornwall and other places that are on the brink of financial failure at the moment and it is very important that CICs exist to help them. At the same time, when you are doing this with not very much money, my noble friend’s Question about regulation is also very important. We need the comfort to know that the regulator is doing its job properly if this is really going to work, as it needs to.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. Of course, I wholeheartedly agree that it is very important that CICs have the confidence of the public. People are going to invest in them and they are expected to operate at the highest possible level of probity and integrity. That does not mean to say that all of them will be a success, but the principles of combining philanthropy with private enterprise, with the outcomes that that has achieved in a very easy to operate and low-cost format, seems to have been enormously successful. It is something that we want to continue, but I am very aware of the comments made to me today and I will make sure that they are passed on to the relevant authorities.

Post Office Horizon Scandal: Racism

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. Absolutely—this is fundamental to looking at the overturning of the convictions. There were 983 wrongful convictions and the Ministry of Justice is now working through that process and it absolutely needs to understand exactly how these convictions came about and to whom.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the chairman of the Post Office, who has now resigned, was recently quoted in the press as being advised several times on the quiet by officials in Government to go slow with giving money back after prosecutions in order to save government expenditure. Was that the reason he was sacked or was it because the Government wanted to have a new broom there? It does not reflect very well on what the civil servants were reported to be telling him.

Post Office Horizon Scandal: Compensation Payments

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The issue here is that the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who run these shops know their accounts back to front—that is the whole point. They know to a penny what they are doing from one week to the next, which is why perhaps the greatest sadness in this saga was those honourable people being told that they were alone, when in fact there were thousands of them. We are clear now that, in day-to-day operational matters, we do not have these issues. We are clear that we need to put a new system in place, which is what the Government are committed to doing.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, in response to an earlier question, the Minister said that the chairman had to go because he was effectively responsible for the toxic situation within the company, and it was the chairman’s job at the top to be responsible for this. I am sure he would agree that that is the case, but what about all the other people within the Post Office? Is the Minister saying that none of them had any responsibility for the toxicity within the whole company?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

A company’s culture is set by the board and the management. There has not been a prosecution since 2015, and no one on the board of the Post Office today was involved in the prosecutions. The current board is completely different, and we are now dealing with getting the culture right for this company going forward. We always start with the chair, because that is the top position in the company.

Tata Steel: Port Talbot

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for a point well made. The Welsh Government and the UK Government are working together on a transformational transition board. Forgive me for not having the specific nomenclature for it, but it is a collective group led by the UK Government, with participation from the Welsh Government, to ensure that there is strong transition for the people and communities most affected. That includes £100 million, with a substantial contribution from Tata, to ensure that there is money available for that transformation and the transition for the affected individuals and communities. That is a very important commitment. As I said, if we look back 40 or 50 years, it was perfectly reasonable for the charge to be raised that there was not enough done to allow communities and individuals to transition properly from one industrial position to another—that is something that we will not allow to happen. It is absolutely essential that we work closely with the Welsh Government; I see this as a partnership between the two Governments of the UK and Wales. As I responded to the noble Baroness, this is the exact benefit of a strong United Kingdom and a strong union.

I will return again to the point raised about the consultation process on this commercially sensitive and complex arrangement. It is impossible to know what the ramifications of a transformation will be until you have decided what the funding and financing behind it will be. Tata is investing over £1 billion in this transformation programme and the UK Government are putting in £500 million. Until that had been confirmed, it would have been impossible—noble Lords must surely realise this—to know what the future of the site and its industrial capability would be, and, as result, what the projections on the consultations for employment would be. I have great sympathy with both the Government and Tata for making sure that there was a high degree of confidentiality around the specific deals. But make no mistake: this discussion has been going on for a decade and the outcome is no surprise to anyone in this House or in Port Talbot. What is a delight and to be celebrated is that we have come to a decision; people no longer have to worry about a decision that has not been taken. Now we can get on with the job of delivering a transformed Port Talbot steelworks, a strong partnership with Tata and a very strong partnership between the UK Government and the Welsh Government.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the great interest from his colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero about offshore wind farms in the Celtic Sea. A number of us have been attending meetings about where these would be located and where the shore stations would be, if we can call them that. I live in Cornwall and felt fairly miserable that they could not be built there because there is no flat land big enough for those enormous great tanks to be built—although that is fair enough. Obviously, Port Talbot comes top of the list for having a large number of flat areas and decent quays and, until now, the right steel-making facilities. Is anyone, between the Minister’s department and the energy department, talking about how those facilities could still be built at Port Talbot, even with a new electric arc furnace? Is it the right type of steel, and is there enough space? Presumably, it will create some jobs, which I hope will be welcomed.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I am afraid that I was not entirely clear on some of the points he made, but, as I understood it, he was looking for clean energy supply to the Port Talbot facility. There have been a number of discussions on that, and I share his view on, and enthusiasm for, offshore wind—particularly floating offshore wind—and I believe that all these options are being explored. They will create a huge amount of inward investment, a huge number of jobs and an enormous amount of innovation. The UK is leading the way, as noble Lords know, on the provision and building of offshore wind capabilities.

Post Office Executives: Bonuses

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot disagree with the motive behind my noble friend’s question. The Government set aside £1 billion to deal with the compensation for the scandal. Of that, over £100 million has been paid out. But due process has to follow its route, and it continues to do so.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Post Office’s previous management seems to have got away scot free on this. It has been going on for a good 10 years, and some of them even get promoted to other jobs. Should they not be implicated and called to account, along with the IT provider that caused all this?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, management clearly has a very serious responsibility, as the Post Office provides all of us, throughout the entire land, with some extremely valuable services. The specific management team in place has apologised and, while this is not the appropriate time to go into great detail about what might happen to it, it must be fully aware of the errors that it authorised.