Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the other place has now been clear, for the second time, that it is firm in its position on this amendment. Noble Lords asked the Commons to reconsider, and it has reached the same decision.

The Bill creates new rules for suppliers and contracting authorities that will stay on the statute book for the foreseeable future. We therefore need to be measured and prudent in our approach and avoid imposing further unnecessary bureaucracy on UK businesses that duplicates both the existing provisions in the Bill and the steps being taken outside the legislation.

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for the debates he has led on organ harvesting. We share a unanimous view that organ harvesting is an abhorrent practice that has no place in our supply chains. Accordingly, if a supplier or one of its connected persons fails to comply with the established ethical or professional standards within its respective industry, including relating to the removal, storage and use of human tissue, the supplier could face exclusion on the grounds of professional misconduct. However, as far as I am aware, no supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. Given that the exclusion grounds in the Bill have been selected based on the areas of greatest risk to public procurement, it is not necessary to single out organ harvesting in this Bill.

The Government are already actively addressing this awful practice. For example, it is an offence to travel outside the UK to purchase an organ, by virtue of new offences introduced by the Health and Care Act 2022. In addition, the Government continue to monitor and review evidence relating to reports of forced organ harvesting and maintain a dialogue with leading non-governmental organisations and international partners on this very important issue.

I make one further remark concerning an issue which, while out of scope of today’s debate, is of significant importance to this Bill and the country’s security. It relates to concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, following recent press coverage regarding surveillance equipment, which I look forward to discussing with him in person tomorrow. On 24 November 2022, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a Statement in the other place instructing government departments to cease deployment on their sensitive sites of surveillance equipment produced by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of the People’s Republic of China.

During our last debate in this House, I set out the definition of “sensitive sites” to which our commitment would apply and which I am happy to reiterate today. As I said on 11 September, our commitment will apply to government departments and cover their sensitive sites, which are any building or complex that routinely holds secret material or above, any location that hosts a significant proportion of officials holding developed vetting clearance, any location routinely used by Ministers, and any government location covered under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. I went on to reiterate that our commitment does not extend to the wider public sector. However, in no way is this an endorsement of the use of such surveillance equipment by these organisations or by organisations in the private sector. Indeed, these organisations may instead choose to mirror our action. I believe that some of them already have, including the police.

I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanation behind the Motion. She kindly referred to the amendments I tabled on Report following our debate in Committee, which focused on the appalling practice of forced organ harvesting, principally in China, which involves the removal of organs from living prisoners of conscience for the purpose of transplantation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned, widespread throughout China and has become a multi-billion-pound commercial operation.

We know that the victims are mainly Falun Gong practitioners, but more recently, evidence has indicated that Uighur Muslims are also being targeted on a massive scale. Further to that, there are several pieces of evidence suggesting that Tibetans and house Christians are as likely to be the victims of forced organ harvesting. As the noble Baroness said, my amendment was passed by your Lordships’ House on Report and went to the Commons, where it was rejected. We had another go in September and again, I am afraid, the Commons has reinserted the original provisions in the Bill.

I regret that this has happened for three reasons, the first being the scale of the atrocities being carried out in China and specifically in Xinjiang province. Secondly, Ministers are wrong to dismiss the need for the amendment. Above all else, its passage would have been a powerful signal in the UK and globally of our abhorrence of these awful practices. Thirdly, you cannot consider my amendment on forced organ harvesting without setting it in the context of the Government’s approach to China more generally. The Prime Minister has talked quite tough in recent weeks on the Government’s approach to China. However, the overall approach, to put it at its kindest, is clouded in inconsistency, ambiguity and sometimes downright confusion. That has been reflected in any number of Select Committee reports over the last year or two.

However, I recognise that this has gone as far as I could expect it to go. I am grateful to all those who supported me, particularly my Front Bench, the Lib Dems and many noble Lords around the House. I particularly pay tribute to Lord Bernie Ribeiro, who retired from the House on Monday. He has been a tower of support to me on this very worrying issue over many years. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete: Public Buildings

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am grateful to hear from the noble Baroness about the situation in the university sector. Of course, they will be taking their responsibilities seriously. As I know from having been involved in these sorts of organisations, the governors always spend a lot of time being concerned about, and taking professional advice on, the safety and state of buildings. Universities and hospitals, where RAAC mitigation work has been going on since 2019, are a bit different from schools, because the estates are usually concentrated in a smaller number of buildings and there are usually dedicated teams of trained estate professionals who are able to monitor and maintain the buildings.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness says that public bodies should accept their responsibilities, is she not aware—of course she is—that capital expenditure limits in the public sector are set by central government? Very often, the specifications for building materials are specified through government machinery and advice. After the survey of the NHS in relation to RAAC, why is the target to get rid of it 2035? Why will it take another 12 years?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

One of the reasons for that is that some of the hospitals in which we have identified RAAC need a full replacement. They will be part of the rebuilt hospitals programme, which is due to mature by 2030. DHSC has published a media fact sheet on RAAC in the NHS, which I think the noble Lord might find very helpful in the health context.

Cabinet Manual

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 24th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will this work also look at Written Questions that remain unanswered after 10 working days? I refer to page 10 of today’s Order Paper, which lists more than 11 questions, one of which, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, goes back to 19 June. That simply is not acceptable.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I share the noble Lord’s concerns about delays to answering Parliamentary Questions, which we all try to do our best to answer in time. When departments get behind, we are rightly chided, and I will certainly look at the point. The Cabinet Manual is perhaps a little broader and more strategic, but that is not a reason not to make sure that we are respecting Parliament through the speed with which we answer Questions, which we all find so useful in keeping us up to date on many matters.

Public Service Ombudsman for England

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government have no plans at this time to create a new single public service ombudsman for England. The Government are supportive of the ombudsman institutions and the general principles of the Venice Commission, and will consider specific proposals on ombudsman reform. We do not currently view large-scale ombudsman reform as a priority for this Parliament.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a very disappointing response. We have 20 ombudsmen. It is often very confusing for members of the public taking a complaint to find which one applies to them, particularly where complaints straddle boundaries between, say, health and local government—on a delayed discharge from the NHS into social care, for instance. Putting them all together, alongside the local government and housing ombudsmen, would ensure a much more co-ordinated response and provide much better value for money. Will the Government reconsider this?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The trouble is that combining the existing public services ombudsmen—there are several, as the noble Lord explained—would be a complex and substantial undertaking. It could lead to a reduction in the quality of service for people relying on that service during the transition period, and staff would worry about their futures. I am not sure quite what just putting them together would achieve. The key thing is to have expertise and effective ombudsman decisions, which we have increasingly seen in recent years.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

They are mandatory grounds for exclusion, so if you find that you have a security issue—as we obviously found in relation to Hikvision—those become mandatory exclusions. On modern slavery, again, they are mandatory exclusions. Clearly, if a company is able to self-clean and has shown that it has changed the arrangements, it will not necessarily stay on the debarment list. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this excellent debate has been both moving and profound, because it has dealt with horrific human rights abuses in China but has also attempted to develop an argument about our strategic relationship with that nation.

The Minister said that she was disappointed by some of the remarks. She gave us a full reply, which I am very grateful for, but I too was rather disappointed by her response. Essentially, she said that our concerns are legitimate but that this Bill is not the right place for them to be expressed. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Coaker both suggested, this is a Procurement Bill, setting the regime for government procurement for a number of years ahead. Where better to place values—not just the issue of the lowest common denominator price—than in this Bill, which sets the parameters under which billions of pounds are going to be spent by government and government agencies over the next decade?

The arguments that the Minister put forward were technical, and the Government could have come back and tabled their own amendments, which might have met the technical issues she faces. However, ultimately, the Government have set their face against expressing some profound values in this legislation, but I think that we should do so. I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 91.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Monday 24th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As the noble Lord said, we will come on to discuss those aspects, and I will try to answer that question when we get there. I have probably said enough on that.

Amendment 328 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, provides for a new discretionary exclusion ground in relation to deferred prosecution agreements. This issue was explored in the Green Paper. Due consideration was given to feedback from the public consultation, as well as discussions with the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government’s response to the Green Paper set out the rationale for their decision not to include a separate exclusion ground on deferred prosecution agreements. In brief, the actions taken and commitments made by suppliers as part of the DPA typically constitute good evidence of self-cleaning. Reaching a DPA requires a supplier to accept culpability for the offence, co-operate with the relevant authorities and make reparations. Prosecuting authorities typically will not consider a DPA appropriate unless the supplier has already made reforms, such as proactive changes to corporate structures or the replacement of personnel.

DPAs will involve judicially approved terms that the supplier must commit to—for example, on actions to improve compliance and audit functions within the company, and external reviews to test those improvements to ensure that further misconduct does not occur. Non-compliance with a DPA is unlikely to be something that contracting authorities are equipped to assess. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will understand and accept that.

Compliance is for either the Serious Fraud Office or the Crown Prosecution Service to assess, depending on which is the owner of the DPA in question. If a supplier fails to comply with a DPA, there are a number of options open to the enforcing body, including the prosecution of the supplier for the original criminal misconduct, but that cannot be part of procurement law, or for enforcement by the many differently sized authorities engaged in buying goods or services in the public sector.

Finally, Amendment 443 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, seeks to remove

“a British Overseas Territory or a Crown Dependency”

from the definition of a UK supplier. The Bill confers rights on UK suppliers in a number of places, including, in Clauses 18 and 19, an entitlement to be considered as part of a competitive tender, or, in Clause 89, to access remedies. They are also used as the basis for an assessment of no less favourable treatment in the non-discrimination provisions, in Clause 82(2). This amendment would remove this guaranteed access to the UK’s procurement markets from suppliers from Gibraltar, which is the only overseas territory or Crown dependency whose suppliers currently enjoy access under the existing procurement regime.

Although overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not part of the UK constitutionally, they do not become party to treaties in their own right. The UK must extend the territorial scope of its ratification of treaties to include them. As such, overseas territories and Crown dependencies are unable to secure rights to markets in the United Kingdom in the same way as other states. That is a long way of saying that in view of the special nature of the trading relationship between the UK and overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is right to include them in the definition of a UK supplier.

This discussion has been useful and illuminating to me. I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I particularly welcomed her comments on SMEs and training rollout. I really agree about the importance of investment in training as the Bill is enacted. However, I remain concerned about the Government’s approach, which seems supine in many respects when dealing with these multinational companies.

Only this afternoon at Oral Questions, we had a fascinating exchange about the remarkable decision to award Fujitsu a £48 million contract to upgrade the police national computer, given the role of that company in developing Horizon software for the Post Office. We were told by a Minister that in effect, there was no alternative because of the continuing arrangements with that company. Listening to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about performance issues, corruption, competition infringements, which were added to by my noble friend, and the issues on tax, essentially the Minister has an ideological objection to the use of contracts to further government policy outside the narrow procurement interest. This is where I fundamentally disagree with her.

It is not good enough simply to say that it is down to HMRC. Procurement can be used to enhance policy in a number of areas. Many of these multinational companies are taking this country for a ride. We need to see tougher action. Having said that, I hope that we can continue to debate this important issue. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Clearly, I have learned during this debate. I will obviously have to learn a little more about how we have tackled this issue. As was said right at the beginning of the debate, there is clearly some difficulty around the principle of how much detail to include and how many things to cross-reference in the Bill but, in the light of the noble Lord’s helpful clarification, I will go away, look at the various areas and come back to him.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Coaker for their profound speeches. Of course, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, who cannot be here today.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, put a number of pertinent questions to the Minister, not just about the UK-China hospital partnership but more generally about the principles behind our trade with China. I must say that I find government policy inconsistent and incomprehensible. The new Administration, if I can call them that, need to get a grip on what exactly our relationship with China ought to be in terms of diplomacy, trade and strategic investment. Over the past few years, it has seemed completely all over the place.

There is an argument—my noble friend Lord Coaker referred to it—about the principle of how much we should use procurement legislation for wider, desirable policy aims. I believe passionately that it is right to use a Procurement Bill to try to influence this abhorrent practice. I am grateful to the Minister because she gave a careful response and appreciated the seriousness of this abhorrent practice, which we are doing our best to help eradicate. She also acknowledged the changes made in legislation in the past few years. However, she was critical of the amendment’s wording; she has quickly taken on the mantle of ministerial office again, by finding all amendments that do not emanate from her own department technically deficient.

The Minister’s key point around what is wrong with the amendment is that it is guilt by exclusion. I understand that but I believe that the amendment is tightly drawn. It is not just about excluding suppliers

“located in a country categorised … as at high risk of forced organ harvesting.”

It would exclude only in the event of

“a public contract involving … any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to”

that. That is tightly drawn and entirely justifiable.

The Minister also said that these practices would be covered by the exclusion grounds in the Bill. We have now had a debate on that; I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised some important questions. I accept that one can look to general provisions in a Bill and say, “Well, those cover it”, but I believe that there is sometimes a strong place for explicit provision on a practice that we find abhorrent. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to discuss this with us between Committee and Report because I am convinced; I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Coaker for his pertinent comment that we will come back to this on Report. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I will also speak to Amendment 7, to which I have added my name. I must apologise for not being able to be here in Committee. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Rooker for raising a number of very important matters, to which I now wish to return.

Like every other noble Lord who has spoken, I am right behind these Games and feel that they will give huge advantage and impetus to the city of Birmingham and the West Midlands in many ways. However, a financial commitment is clearly involved. The Minister confirmed in Committee an investment of £778 million. This was to be split 75:25 between the Government and Birmingham City Council and a number of its key partners. It is clearly important that the city council pulls off agreements with key partners to defray much of the expenditure. The finances of the city council are, shall we say, fragile, and it would be disappointing if any resource had to be found from existing services to find the money that the city council needs to contribute.

That is why I have considerable interest in the idea of a hotel levy tax to help fund some aspects of the Games. I understand that Edinburgh is likely to be allowed to go ahead with such a tax, and the Core Cities Group is absolutely behind it. The noble Lord may be aware that we had a very good debate last week in Grand Committee on the report of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, on the role of cities in investing and allowing the economy to grow. In his report Empowering English Cities, he makes the point that the Government should allow local authorities, or “mayoral authorities”, as he describes them, to,

“raise local taxes and charges. These … include vehicle excise duty, airport passenger duty, tourist tax and local cultural admission charges. With appropriate local exclusions, it is ludicrous for British tourists to pay to visit historic collections and buildings abroad while millions of visitors to this country enjoy free access”.

I will not go into the whole of his argument. The point is that there is some support for allowing local authorities to raise local taxes in the way he describes. Hotel taxes are quite accepted in many parts of the world. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said in Committee, a £1 a night tax for a three-year period could be expected to bring in £4.5 million to £5 million a year.

In Committee, the Minister did not exactly embrace this as enthusiastically, as I would have wished, but he referred us to a report on tourism tariffs by the all-party parliamentary group, which has expressed some reservations about the likely impact of a long-term tax having a positive impact on tourism infrastructure. That report concluded:

“Further studies need to be commissioned on the economic impact and viability of a tourist tax”.


I fully accept that. We are at the beginning of exploring such a concept. The argument I put to the Minister is that we have a heaven-sent opportunity to try a pilot in Birmingham to see how it works. We hope it would raise resources towards the Games. We would see what impact it had on the hotel market and the economy of the city as a whole. I cannot see what there is to lose in allowing the city council to be a pilot in those circumstances. It does not commit the Government to the principle for all local authorities in the future, but says that they are prepared to see whether a hotel tax is feasible, does not produce negative impacts and would be of immense help to Birmingham. There are two versions, if you like, of this idea: my amendment, which is a requirement on the Secretary of State to essentially bring forward a scheme, and my noble friend’s amendment, which asks the Government to look at the feasibility and come forward with a report.

In the end, it is important for future Commonwealth Games that the financial viability of these Games works out effectively for the host city. One reason why Birmingham had to take this on at short notice was the financial difficulties in the original host city. I know that the Commonwealth Games Federation is very interested in the concept of low-cost Games; indeed, the organisation of these Games is consistent with the federation’s desire to keep costs at the lowest level possible commensurate with a quality Games. All that needs to be supported. All I ask is, to ensure that that undue burden does not fall on the city of Birmingham and local services, the council is given an opportunity, as it wants, to try out a hotel tax and make a contribution to the cost. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to express some concerns about the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Griffiths of Burry Port. I am sorry that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, as I am a great supporter of Birmingham, which is a brilliant, vibrant and enterprising city, and a great supporter of the Commonwealth Games. I remember the opening ceremony of the Glasgow Games, which I was lucky enough to attend as a Business Minister, with great nostalgia. We all remember those Scottie dogs. On a more serious point, I remember the benefit the Games brought to Glasgow, and indeed to UK plc. As your Lordships can imagine, I am therefore a huge supporter of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games. We are right to take the plunge, even though we have had less time than usual to prepare, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, kindly explained in Committee, we are taking over the Games planned for Durban.

Clearly, hosting the Games is a financial challenge, but I believe the Government have gone about this in a sensible way, and that the 75:25 split between central government on the one hand and Birmingham City Council and its partners on the other is fair. The Games will be a huge boost for the local economy and the worldwide reputation of the Midlands, and of Birmingham in particular. I should mention my interest as a director of Secure Trust Bank, which is headquartered in Solihull.

However—this is my concern—I am not a supporter of a hotel occupancy levy, even on an experimental basis, at a low rate, and for a good purpose. It would be a new form of taxation, and new taxes should not be introduced or even mooted without great care and consideration of the financial and administrative costs, any perverse effects and, equally important, the way such attacks can morph into a new piggy bank for the Chancellor or set an unwelcome precedent. I say the same to those looking at the hotel tax in Edinburgh.

The hospitality and hotel sector is already challenged by the changes it will have to deal with post Brexit. Moreover, in the main, it is taxed highly compared with other countries that impose hotel occupancy levies. We have VAT at 20%, employment taxes, costly business rates—which we debate often—together with the joys of vigorous HMRC-style enforcement, which competing European hoteliers often avoid. There is also a level playing field issue: digital operators such as Airbnb take trade from hotels and ironically, they would appear to benefit relatively from the proposed hotel charge. Our hotel businesses, in Birmingham and elsewhere, are in many cases small businesses, and we should be reducing burdens on them, not increasing them.

Even bigger businesses, such as IHG, which is listed in the UK and, I understand, has 350 hotels, pose a problem. By chance, I met somebody from IHG today and asked them about the Bill. I understand that the vast majority of its hotels are franchised, often to small business people and family enterprises.

So there is a problem. My noble friend has rightly promised more information on the Games budget, which I look forward to studying. However, I ask him to live up to the principles of fiscal rectitude and resist this new tax, however well argued in the context of the Bill.

Brexit: Medical Research and Innovation

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 21st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord on the excellence of our research and development base, and on the great work being done by the research councils. I look forward to debating the way forward when the Bill on education and research reaches this House in the coming weeks. New funding has been made available today. This vision and direction of travel is excellent news for our science and research base in every part of the country.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Minister ducked the question on the European Medicines Agency. Will she answer a question about the MHRA, the UK medicines regulator, which is regarded as the finest regulator in Europe and is one factor behind the large investment in medical research in the UK? In the Brexit negotiations, will she ensure that there is mutual recognition, so that medicines licensed by the MHRA will continue to be recognised throughout Europe?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I will feed the noble Lord’s suggestion into the process that is going on to make sure that we get the best deal in the Brexit negotiations on all these issues. He will know that Jo Johnson has a set up a forum with senior representatives of UK Research and Innovation to look at such matters, and that work continues in the Department of Health. This is a very important area. A lot of the detail is complex, but we are aware of that and, as I said in my opening comment, a great deal of work is going on.

Business: Advice Services

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the Chancellor made it clear in his Autumn Statement that businesses need an active and sustained industrial strategy. We continue to work closely with different industry sectors—I do so with electronics and professional services. A whole series of announcements were made in relation to manufacturing to provide more support for aerospace, automotive, defence and transport.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned SMEs. Is she aware of the concern that the central government procurement contracts are actually squeezing SMEs out from winning contracts? Is she prepared to look at government procurement policy again?

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments. The government amendment, which the Opposition are supporting, clearly comes on the back of the Francis report on Mid Staffordshire. I also point noble Lords to the very recent report by Dr Bill Kirkup and an expert panel of members, who looked into maternal care at the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust.

That report, as the Statement which we had last week in this House said,

“found 20 instances of significant or major failings of care at Furness General Hospital, associated with three maternal deaths and the deaths of 16 babies at or shortly after birth. It concludes that different clinical care would have been expected to prevent the death of one mother and 11 babies”.

It described,

“major failures at almost every level … mistakes by midwives and doctors, a failure to investigate and learn from those mistakes, and repeated failures to be honest with patients and families, including the possible destruction of medical notes. The report says that the dysfunctional nature of the maternity unit should have become obvious in early 2009, but regulated bodies”,

including the north-west strategic health authority, primary care trusts, the CQC, Monitor and the PHSO—that is, the ombudsman,

“failed to work together and missed numerous opportunities to address the issue”.—[Official Report, 3/3/15; cols. 158-59.].

For the purpose of our debate, the report also showed that the drive for a transparent and open culture in the NHS has some way to go. Notes were destroyed and mistakes were covered up. Dr Kirkup’s assessment is that it was,

“possibly because of a defensive culture where the individuals involved thought they would lose their jobs if they were discovered to have been responsible for a death”.—[Official Report, 3/3/15; col. 160.].

It seems from Francis, the Morecambe Bay report and our general experience of the NHS that there is a pressing need for a transparent and open culture, in which the protection of whistleblowers is an important element.

Ministers in this Government and the previous Government have from time to time issued various edicts about the importance of the protection of whistleblowers. There has been guidance on this, but it is clear that a whole swathe of staff in the NHS still do not feel confident about raising concerns on patient care. That is why the Opposition very much support government Amendment 58A but I, like other noble Lords, do not think that we can stop at the NHS. That is why I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Wills and the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Phillips.

As my noble friend Lord Wills said, there are “significant gaps” and loopholes,

“in the current protections for those making disclosures in the public interest”.—[Official Report, 26/1/15; col. GC1.]

While we have at least had a lot of debates about failures in the NHS, one has only to think of the issues following the Hillsborough football disaster, as my noble friend said in Committee, more recently in Rotherham with child abuse and then recently in Oxfordshire, again with child abuse. I am not sure whether this has been corroborated by an independent inquiry, but the point has certainly been put that a junior member of staff in Oxford City Council was subject to discouragement for raising concerns because of approaches made by Oxfordshire County Council, which was responsible for childcare, to senior officials in Oxford City Council to try to stop this person raising what seemed to be eminently sensible concerns about the way that these cases were being dealt with—or not being dealt with—in Oxfordshire.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, mentioned the banking world and my noble friend Lord Wills mentioned the construction industry, which is a great example. If a construction worker raises health and safety concerns, there are very good companies in the construction world where they are taken seriously. Overall, my noble friend knows that there has been considerable improvement but there are companies where, if employees raise those concerns, they are blacklisted and cannot get work in the industry. Again, where is the protection for those people?

What about education, a notorious sector where if teachers raise concerns they can look for very little protection? In education, the principal or head often has a dominant role in the governing body. In schools and colleges, there are often no procedures whatever for whistleblowing. At least in the health service there are procedures and very strong corporate governance, with a tradition of company secretaries who should be able to make sure that the procedures work. In the education sector, there are no such guarantees at all. It seems to me that my noble friend and his colleagues are absolutely persuasive. We need protections which go far beyond the National Health Service. I very much hope that the Minister will listen to these arguments and agree either to support these amendments or come back with amendments on Third Reading which would meet the point raised by my noble friend.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Phillips for these amendments. I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on whistleblowing. I am not sure that we would be where we are, if not for him. I also thank others who have been involved. The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, were involved in Committee. It is good and right to hear also from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, given the health aspect of this problem.

I make it absolutely clear that the Government share the widespread support in this House for whistleblowers and will continue to make strides in strengthening the whistleblowing framework, obviously not least because of the scandals at Mid Staffordshire and Morecambe Bay, which have been so eloquently referred to. That is why we are taking action through this Bill and elsewhere. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, acknowledged that. First, we are protecting whistleblowers from being discriminated against when applying to work in the NHS. The noble Lord described some graphic examples. Secondly, we are taking action to improve transparency in the way that regulators handle whistleblowing concerns.

On the first point, the Government have tabled an amendment in response to the recent Francis review. This recommended that the Government,

“review the protection afforded to those who make protected disclosures, with a view to including discrimination in recruitment by employers”.

Based on Sir Robert’s findings, we are convinced that blacklisting applicants for NHS jobs because they are whistleblowers causes a very serious injustice. They are effectively excluded from the ability to work again in their chosen field. When NHS staff raise concerns, they can save lives and prevent harm. That is why we are taking the opportunity, very much at the last stage of the Bill, to protect whistleblowers seeking employment in the NHS.

Amendment 58ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, seeks to protect all job applicants who have blown the whistle. I have listened to his arguments around other sectors; I think that this evening people have mentioned policing, social care, construction, banking and education. I sympathise. No job applicant in whatever sector should be disadvantaged by being a whistleblower but—I have to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Wills—when we debated this in Committee, I expressed my concern about the lack of evidence that there was a widespread problem right across the board. We do not have the level of evidence for other sectors on the nature of the gap or the scale of the problem.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Is the point not that for all the NHS’s failings, it probably has a more open culture than many other sectors? That is why we know more about the problems of whistleblowing there. In education, it is much more difficult to have central government intervention in cases where staff have clearly been intimidated. In a sense, some of these other sectors need much more attention. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, talked about the banking industry. Does anyone have any confidence at all that if someone working in the City raised concerns, even after the failures, they would be taken seriously? I rather doubt it.