Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023

Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2022-23.

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

My Lords, I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and others, and I echo what he said about our constructive discussions in 2014-16. I am also pleased to see my noble friend Lord Camrose championing intellectual property, as we try to do, and to see him accompanied by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow in his new position as Cabinet Office Whip.

The Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023 are an important part of this Government’s commitment to strengthen the use of data and information across the public sector. We are bringing these forward so we can deliver better and more joined-up services and, in turn, improve outcomes for our citizens.

The regulations aim to allow information sharing between named bodies for the specific purpose of supporting cross-government identity checking when it is needed. Verifying a user’s identity—ensuring that a person is who they say they are—is a key part of delivering many government services. The draft regulations enable this by establishing a new data-sharing objective under Section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 and by setting out which public bodies may use the new objective. This will create a legislative gateway, enabling us to use existing data sets, which public bodies already hold, to help as many people as possible to access the government services that they need online. It is therefore central to the development of more inclusive and accessible systems.

Specifically, the proposed objective would unlock the full benefits of the new cross-government digital system known as GOV.UK One Login. This is now live; users are able to set up an account, log in and prove their identity in order to access an initial set of 24 government services, with more being added all the time. However, at the moment, users must have photographic documentation, such as a passport or driving licence. This will change following the introduction of the new objective, as it will unlock new ways for people without photo ID to prove who they are, opening up the system to more users.

The delivery of One Login is a step change in simple joined-up access to government services online. This, in turn, delivers substantial cost and time savings for the Government and users by reducing duplication and providing enhanced capability to identify and stop fraudsters. In summary, the proposed objective will, first, enable checks against existing government-held information, such as PAYE and benefits data, to build confidence in the user’s identity, which will be particularly key where service users do not have a passport or driving licence. Secondly, it will provide a specific legal framework for checks against documents currently used in identity verification, such as driving licences. Thirdly, it will enable the sharing of the results of identity checks performed by one named body with another, so that users need to prove their identity only once.

The draft regulations set out which of the bodies already listed in Schedule 4 to the Digital Economy Act can use the new identity-verification data-sharing power, such as HM Revenue & Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions. They also add four new public bodies to the schedule that will be able to use the power: the Cabinet Office, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Disclosure and Barring Service.

The public bodies listed in the regulations are either bodies that hold information that could be used in support of proving that someone is whom they say they are or those that own and manage services that people need to access, which they therefore need to receive the results of identity checks. Of course, some public bodies do both.

The territorial extent of the draft regulations is England, Wales and Scotland. The Information Commissioner’s Office and the devolved Administrations support the draft regulations, and indeed the Scottish and Welsh Administrations have requested that certain Scottish and Welsh bodies be included in the draft regulations to enable them to use the new data-sharing power—so it is devolved friendly.

I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to know that these draft regulations have been subject to the standard rigorous processes of internal and external review. In the first instance, the objective has been subject to scrutiny by the Public Service Delivery Review Board, as set out in the underpinning code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud of the Digital Economy Act 2017. The board recommended that Ministers take forward these draft regulations since they meet the required criteria of supporting the improvement, or targeting, of public services to individuals in order to enhance their well-being.

Furthermore, the objective has been subject to a public consultation, which received more than 66,000 responses. Some respondents recognised the benefits to individuals of improved and more inclusive services. Some mistakenly expressed concern that this was a back-door route to identity cards. Therefore, in response to the consultation, the Government confirmed that they have no plans to introduce mandatory digital ID or identity cards. We also published additional information on how GOV.UK One Login will operate within these regulations and within the overall data protection framework. We extended the time between the regulations being approved and coming into force, and we amended some of the wording to reflect that of the Act. Of course, the Government understand that people want to protect their personal information and this is central to our approach. The draft regulations relate to using data only for the purpose of identity verification.

Part 5 of the 2017 Act gives the Government powers to share personal information across organisational boundaries to improve public services. It lays down what data can be shared and for which purposes. Data sharing must also have regard to the accompanying statutory code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud, which sets out how the power must be operated, including how any data shared must be processed lawfully, securely and proportionately in compliance with data protection legislation and UK GDPR.

The Digital Economy Act statutory code of practice on public service delivery, debt and fraud also requires information-sharing agreements to be listed on a public register of information-sharing activity under the powers. The framework for data sharing under the DEA provides a supportive background to help organisations to share data in ways that benefit the public, as confirmed by the Information Commissioner’s Office in its recent review. It includes robust safeguards that ensure that organisations share data responsibly and in alignment with data protection principles, while also safeguarding people’s rights.

I think these regulations are relatively straightforward and important, and I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting them.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is good to see the Minister move seamlessly from intellectual property to digital and data, but both can sometimes create their own questions. Since this is the first time we have debated One Login in the Lords, I hope that the Minister will not mind if she gets a large number of questions about the scheme. As I understand it, the goal of the One Login programme is to create a log-in database owned by the Government and containing the verified names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers and email addresses of everyone who uses—eventually—all Government-owned digital services, which is likely to be everyone in the country.

Perhaps unfairly, I have always thought of One Login with some scepticism, as the son or daughter of Verify, and not in a good way. The cost of the failed Verify scheme was over £200 million. It would be very useful as part of this debate to hear the cost of OneLogin so far and how much more is budgeted to be spent on its rollout. It does seem strange that the Government are having another crack at a single verification system, given the many other trustworthy existing systems that could be adopted.

First, I think it worth mentioning what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said in its 55th report in October. I think it was rather baffled and scathing at the same time:

“This is a classic example of an Explanatory Memorandum … with too narrow a focus”.


I think it felt it was being bounced to some extent, without the context in which One Login was going to be designed to work. It said:

“We therefore request that the Cabinet Office revises its”


Explanatory Memorandum

“to include sufficient background information to enable any reader to understand the legislation’s practical effects”.

I suppose I am lucky in that I followed the gory progress of Verify through to One Login and the current date. I have some idea of the purpose behind One Login. As I understand it, the principal effect of these regulations is to allow the Government to share data for the purposes of identification. The SI does not restrict those flows of data; data can flow into the Cabinet Office as envisaged but identity data can also flow from the Cabinet Office to any other listed department. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that.

Will the Government allow population databases to be copied, whether openly or not? The revised Explanatory Memorandum is silent on this, and it is unclear if this assurance from the Government’s consultation response will be delivered. The response said:

“In particular, information will set out which departmental services are using identity verification services to support delivery and which will provide data to help departments establish who a person is”.


Will that actually happen? Will there be that level of transparency? There are apparently no safeguards on sharing bulk data if the Government want to share for this purpose across government. What transparency will there be if and when this takes place?

There is then the question of for whose benefit One Login really is. Is this a “better login to government” project, which many people might applaud, or is it a “one identity to government” project? The answer at the moment appears to be the latter. I say this because medConfidential, which I thank for its briefing, reports that a

“meeting held during the consultation was told that the Government’s intent is to actively prevent individuals from having multiple login accounts. A person may be able to have multiple email addresses— indeed, they may already do—but Government would attach them to a single ‘identity’. This regulation allows that database to be shared in bulk”.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that turns One Login into a tool of a centralising state—with implications for the privacy of the citizen—which the Government have previously assured us many times they were not building. I would therefore be extremely grateful if the Minister described the reality of One Login, as well as its purpose and operation.

At a roundtable on the consultation, the Government Digital Service apparently said that the regulation’s “first use is One Login”, which suggests there will be a second use. It is unclear to us to what extent the DWP will embrace One Login for government, for universal credit, for HMRC’s services, or indeed for the MoJ’s digital courts. What commitment from government departments and agencies is there? I can see that they are all listed, but Verify fell down precisely because of the lack of commitment from many government departments. What about the identities, too, of public servants? Will they be able to have multiple identities as both citizen and employee? What is the reality of that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful introductory remarks. This regulation concerns the sharing of information between public authorities to ensure that any information sharing under Section 35 is justified and proportionate. It permits public authorities to share information only for purposes consistent with tightly constrained objectives which are set out in regulations. This measure adds a new objective relating to identity verification.

In future, individuals will be able to create a reusable digital identity, which the Government say would be secure, convenient and efficient. Instinctively, we would be very supportive of this, but it would be helpful, certainly to me, if the Minister could perhaps explain with a practical example exactly how this will work from a citizen’s perspective, imagining perhaps that she is applying for universal credit. What will she be able to do that she cannot do now? How would her interaction with the service provider be enhanced by this new objective? Will there be a benefit to those who do not have a passport or a driving licence and who, on occasions, find it difficult to prove their identity? What future use does the Minister anticipate?

There are some future uses. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, quite rightly highlighted some of the potential problems with this, but there are potential benefits that I can see. For instance, could digital verification, in time, be helpful at polling stations in enabling individuals without passports or driving licences to vote, without having to obtain a certificate in advance? I do not know if noble Lords have ever seen one of these certificates that people have to get at the moment, but the one I saw recently was just a blurry picture on a piece of A4 paper. These things are meant to last for years. Perhaps the Minister could make inquiries as to whether digital verification at polling stations might be more convenient, perhaps even allowing real-time voter registration. It does matter, and it is vital that digital transformation benefits and enhances citizens’ experience and access to services, as well as making public services more efficient.

A number of respondents to the consultation were concerned—and I think everyone will have anticipated this—about the security of their information, and whether or not this could be the thin end of the wedge as they see it. We are pleased that this amendment would make things, I think, more convenient for individuals. To anticipate what the Minister may say, this is because they will no longer have to prove their identity multiple times, and should have a more seamless experience when accessing public services online.

However, there is concern from some that digital verification may become in some sense compulsory. It is rather like the banks, which have a strong high street presence—then online banking becomes very popular, and suddenly the more traditional methods of accessing the service become less viable and therefore less available, which arguably excludes some individuals. It is important that individuals are able to decline to access services digitally, if they wish, for whatever reason, and are not coerced or nudged into accessing services, which goes against their preference over time. With this in mind, it is important that individuals are provided with the right amount of information, so that they can understand what data is being shared, with whom, and what the benefits to them are in consenting to the data sharing. Can the Minister tell us more about how exactly this will be done and how consent will be obtained?

Having in mind the NAO’s report on digital transformation of government services from earlier this year, there are a number of potential issues that the Minister might also wish to comment on. The NAO found that departments are finding that in current market conditions, they cannot acquire sufficient digital skills and expertise in their teams. Can the Minister tell us what the Cabinet Office are doing to make sure that departments have the skills needed to safely progress with this change and future digital transformation across Government?

Also, what oversight are the Government planning? This is vital in establishing public confidence. What will the complaints process be? How are the Government planning to monitor the departmental use of this new objective and assess any inequalities created or made worse by its introduction? Will the Government check whether, in time, the less well off, older people, or people with certain disabilities or certain language issues, for example, are being disadvantaged by the preference of service providers to move to digital access? I look forward to the Minister’s responses to those questions.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Committee—thin though we are—for its time and excellent questions in scrutinising the draft regulations. I think it is right to say that we have learned from Verify. One of the key things is always to learn from errors and learn how to improve things. This is a very different proposition.

The regulations will enable us to harness data more effectively, ensuring that as many people as possible can access the government services that they need online. This is particularly important where citizens and residents lack access to a passport or a driving licence, compelling them to resort to slower and costlier offline alternatives; the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, made that point. Approving the new objective allows us to construct more inclusive and accessible identity verification systems, namely GOV.UK One Login, which will deliver substantial user benefits and savings by minimising duplication and fraud risks.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked many questions, mostly on the GOV.UK One Login programme, of course. This legislation is relatively narrow and is not about the programme as a whole, but I will try to answer some of his questions. I am sure that we can talk about things on another occasion, because I detect a lot of support for the principle of making it easier for people, particularly more vulnerable people, to access government services.

On the PCAG principle, GOV.UK One Login is being delivered in line with existing privacy principles. GDS has been working closely with members of its advisory groups to ensure this. The principles are a framework that GDS works within; they have never been official government policy. However, the data protection regime certainly gives me quite a lot of reassurance about how this will work. I tried to bring that out in my opening remarks.

On the question of population data, the purpose of GOV.UK One Login is to allow citizens who choose to use the service to prove their identity safely and securely in order to access government services online. It is not new that users need to prove who they are to access certain government services, nor that departments have to store information as a result. Let me assure noble Lords that users can delete their accounts at any time. The service standard requires services to provide a joined-up experience across all channels, so doing so would not lock a user out of all government services.

In response to the questions about benefits to individuals, let me say that the objective on data sharing would enable public bodies to share a wider range of specified data than is currently possible. This will allow GOV.UK One Login to draw on a broader range of government-held data sources when users need to verify their identity. This will benefit individuals and households by improving digital inclusion as people without photographic documentation, such as a passport, will still be able to provide their identity online and access government services by answering questions based on additional datasets. They will not have to provide the same data again and again. This will underpin users’ ability to reuse their verified identity across all government services without needing repeatedly to re-enter the same information each and every time they interact with a new service. Of course, that also brings savings to individuals and to government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is data sharing for the purposes of digital identity. Ultimately, by April 2025, we hope to have approximately 145 central government services that can be accessed via One Login. It is a mistake to think that this is somehow going to be used in the bulk way that the noble Lord describes. It is about identity checking, not collecting huge amounts of data for use in a Big Brother sort of way; the noble Lord may have misunderstood this. Users can delete their account at any time. I think that the noble Lord’s concern is perhaps misplaced.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

That is exactly the assurance that I am seeking.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

While I am on the subject of benefits to the individual, there is an example that I would like to share with the committee; it reflects a question that I asked. Sometimes, married women have two different names. I am in that lucky, or unfortunate, position. We understand that some users will need or want to use multiple accounts, so users can already set up multiple accounts on One Login using different email addresses that can relate to different names. From next year, we plan to allow users to link accounts under the same verified identity. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, asked us to look through the eyes of the individual. This is one of the things we have been trying to do in this programme, learning from the past.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am on my third surname as I have had two marriages, but that is not really where I was going. I was looking at it from the perspective of somebody trying to access a service. I cannot imagine that many people would be that interested in how you could link your different accounts, although I can see that it might be important at certain stages in someone’s life. In accessing a service, what will I be asked for or not asked for? It is about the practicality of it. If I am turning up at the benefits office, what is the difference?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The difference is that, at the moment, you tend to have to provide a passport. It is difficult to log in to some of these services without a passport or a driving licence. In future, as I made clear in my introductory remarks, it will be possible to use different sorts of identity data and to have a system within government that allows us to do that. That will have the effect of making it easier for more people who are finding establishing their identity difficult without encouraging a lot of identity fraud, which is obviously another concern that one has to take account of in putting these systems together.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I entirely appreciate the Minister taking the trouble to talk us through this. The question is: for whose benefit is this? Is this so that government departments can identify somebody right across the board, so that you can have only one identity in government and so that the Home Office will share data with universal credit and every other department that interfaces with an individual? Is that the idea of this One Login? Or is it possible to have more than one digital identity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I said, it will be possible. You are not confined to one. It is very much coming at the problem from the user, not simply from the government department, which I think was one of the problems with Verify.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am still not quite sure that I get this. Let us say that I am going to the benefits office; I do not have a passport or a driving licence, and I am asked for other information instead to verify who I am. How will this benefit me in the future, assuming I have never had a driving licence or a passport? What difference will I experience? I am not trying to pick at this; I just want to see the benefit.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

One obvious benefit is that more and more government departments are using digital. The technology is transforming our lives, after all. Once you have this single digital identity, you will then be able to use it to access services and opportunities from other government departments as well. That is the point: the digital identity will be used across the board. That is helpful to individuals. I should add that a document is published on GOV.UK outlining what data is being used by One Login. I think it is worth noble Lords looking at that.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly asked a question about cost—something we always used to ask about in our previous debates. The One Login programme’s total budget for 2022-23 to 2024-25 is £305.4 million. Of this, the programme forecasts expenditure of £132.7 million on the development and rollout of the system by the end of the current financial year.

The noble Lord mentioned the Explanatory Memorandum. We did indeed make some changes, as he acknowledged, to the Explanatory Memorandum, which was made available to the SLSC, to provide a clearer explanation of which part of the law the instrument is changing and why. He mentioned that the revised Explanatory Memorandum was laid on 2 November, and provided more contextual information. In particular, it explained that the SI provides the statutory basis for specified public bodies to share data in order to verify an individual’s identity in a safe and secure way so that they can access public services online, and that duplicative systems are being replaced with a single account. This is an obvious benefit.

The SI will also enable the GOV.UK One Login to draw on a broader range of government-held data sources when users need to verify their identity. That is an important point, because it is difficult for people who do not have a passport or a driving licence under the current system.

We are committed to being open and transparent by making information about data shared under the Digital Economy Act easily available for all to find and understand in the public register of data-sharing agreements. That was one of the safeguards laid down in that Act, so we have obviously taken that on board. That is an important point of transparency.

This is also underpinned by a robust code of practice—I have read it—which was created by Section 43 of the DEA. That sets out how the power must be operated, and includes setting out how any data shared under this power must be processed lawfully, securely and proportionately, in line with data protection legislation. We therefore have the DEA and data protection legislation coming together to allow us to implement this, hopefully life-changing, bit of technology in a way that protects the citizen. Obviously, the Cabinet Office is responsible for maintaining that register, and the Public Service Delivery Review Board is overseeing strategic consistency.

We have not seen that many regulations made under this Act—I think there was one on social care before—but we can see the value of the Act and the safeguards that Parliament added to it coming through.

On voter registration, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, raised a very good point, to my mind. I will have to follow up in writing. Fundamentally, as she said, these regulations will enhance the user experience. Despite many improvements over the last few years, today’s experience of interacting with government is too fragmented. We have multiple logins, and we are repeatedly asked the same information, which sometimes one has recorded on the phone—and sometimes recorded wrongly, as I know from my own experience. This is the same for everyone trying to access government. One Login will replace this with one system; we are used to this on our phones and so on, and there is a lot to be said for this new arrangement. We will have better data sharing to help those people without traditional forms of ID to access the services online that they need.

I hope noble Lords, having heard the benefits of the regulation—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister as she comes to the final furlong, but the question of oversight raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and by me, and the standards that will apply to this system, are extremely important.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Given the time, I will take that away, along with the voting point, if I may. I drew attention to the code of practice and the parent Act; we have every intention of following the principles, but the point about review and oversight is well made by the noble Lord, as always. I will come back to him on that point.

I am sorry that I have not been able to answer every question on the login area. I can introduce noble Lords to my honourable friend in the other place, Alex Burghart, who has spent a great deal of time developing these regulations. The point is that these narrow regulations before us today are a necessary enabler for this major change for the citizen. I hope that noble Lords, having heard the benefits, will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102B in lieu of Commons Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102C.

102C: Because it is unnecessary to have a specific discretionary exclusion ground for involvement in forced organ harvesting in light of the ground for professional misconduct and the lack of evidence that any supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for continuing to press the issue of the terrible practice of organ harvesting and to raise awareness of it. I do not think that there was sufficient awareness of what was happening in China until my noble friend tabled his amendments, and I hope that he continues to work on this in the future. So we are also very disappointed that the Government chose not to accept his amendment, but we are where we are.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, ethical procurement has to be right at the centre of how we continue to do business. Hikvision was debated during the progress of the Bill and there is more work to do on some of these issues.

Having said that, I thank very much the Minister and her team for her comments today and for her constructive approach to improving the Bill, following a fairly sticky start in Committee. It has been a pleasure to work with a Minister, department and noble Lords across the House who genuinely wanted to make a better Bill. I know that there were an enormous number of government amendments—perhaps the Bill should have been better drafted in the first place—but they were very important. We are in a much better place than where we started, so I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who helped to bring us here.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for their insightful contributions in this brief debate—not least on the threat from China and on ethical procurement. It has been a pleasure to work with them all and to set the slightly troublesome record of tabling a very large amendments in this House.

I of course acknowledge the importance of tackling the abhorrent practice of organ harvesting, but this amendment is duplicative, unduly burdensome and not appropriately suited to its intended purpose, which is why the Bill has been returned to our House in this form. For these reasons, I do not think that the amendment is necessary and I reiterate the many commitments we have made in this House and in the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the NHS. The Bill applies to NHS bodies and their procurement of goods and services, which are not classed as healthcare services under the provider selection regime. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord, as I hope he knows, that the underpinning regulations were laid by the Department of Health and Social Care on 19 October, which puts a line under that and ensures a consistent approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, remarked on the definition of sensitive sites. Both our Written Ministerial Statement from November last year, which was trailblazing to some extent, and the definition of sensitive sites that I set out only last month make our position on the issue clear to all concerned. We will be sharing annual reports on the removal of surveillance equipment, as I promised the House when we last debated this on 11 September.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that comment, but that was not my point. It was actually that the language that the Government have used about non-sensitive sites is being used by Hikvision as a marketing tool to placate potential customers and say that it is okay. If the Minister has not seen that wording, I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will provide it; otherwise, I would be happy to. The Government need to reflect to Hikvision that they are not endorsing its technology for non-sensitive sites, which is what the company seeks to communicate.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his clarification. That is why I chose to reiterate what I have said. I will talk to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, tomorrow, but I reiterate that we are keeping an eye on this. The reports on the withdrawal of the surveillance equipment will be important. Public bodies outside government and some private bodies have already decided to withdraw these cameras, so I think the message is clear.

I thanked noble Lords across the House for their valuable contributions to the scrutiny of the Bill when it left for the other place on 13 December. I reiterate everything I said then. I add my thanks to our Whip, my noble friend Lord Mott, and my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Moylan, Lord Lansley and Lord Maude, who I did not mention last time. I much look forward to Royal Assent and the legacy that I believe will stem from the collective efforts of both Houses, which are all represented here this evening.

Motion A agreed.

UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I particularly thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and all noble Lords on the European Affairs Committee for their wide-ranging report. I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government—and, I believe, the whole House—to thank the noble Earl for his skilled chairing of the committee since 2019 and the collaborative approach he has taken to engaging with the Government. He has deservedly gone on to become Convenor of the Cross Benches, and we will all benefit from his calm, wise and intelligent leadership. I am sorry that the new chair, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, is absent today, but delighted that he is in Paris to celebrate His Majesty the King’s first official visit to France.

I am also extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate for their insightful contributions, which are a tribute to the report and its authors. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford was right to emphasise how much the EU has changed and the changing context in which it operates. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out that there will be a new College of Commissioners next year and elections in various places.

We are committed to a mature, constructive relationship with all our international partners. That, of course, includes the European Union. As we stated in our response to the report in June, we intend to realise fully the potential of the trade and co-operation agreement, including in a range of crucial areas such as energy, trade, security and AI.

I cannot agree with view of Brexit expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. Brexit has brought us an independent trade policy, the growth of our green and digital industries, the introduction of sanctions legislation, early approval of the Covid vaccine, and a points-based immigration system.

To return to the report, relations have improved, and continue to do so, under this Government. In particular, I am pleased to say that the UK and EU already enjoy close collaboration and co-operation in their support for Ukraine and over the imposition of sanctions against Russia. I was particularly pleased that, on 7 September, the UK and the EU announced agreement for UK association to Horizon Europe and Copernicus. UK scientists will now have access to the world’s largest research collaboration programme. This will help to ensure that we are on track to deliver on our ambition to grow the economy and make the UK a science and technology superpower. It has indeed taken time because, as some have said, the Prime Minister was rightly determined to ensure that the deal was in the UK’s national interest, strengthening UK science and delivering value for money for UK taxpayers. We are looking forward to working closely with European and international partners to maximise collaboration under these excellent programmes. We have the same approach as on the Windsor Framework—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that this was a major step forward—of getting into the detail and doing what is right for Britain, resisting pressure to accept a boilerplate deal no matter what the terms, and delivering terms that work for us.

As we highlighted in our correspondence with the committee, tackling illegal immigration is a top priority for the Government. We continue to seek EU co-operation in tackling illegal migration—a common challenge, of course, as we can see the boats crossing both the Mediterranean and the channel. The UK-FRONTEX working arrangement, which is currently under negotiation, is an example of joint working on what is clearly a pan-European issue that requires a joined-up effort.

I have dealt with the EU all my working life. I started in the rather powerful cereals management committee as a civil servant in 1974, and eventually was the UK Minister in the Competitiveness Council for three years, where my French opposite number was a certain Emmanuel Macron. I then served with great pleasure with some noble Lords who are here this evening on the EU Committee. I therefore understand the value of engaging the EU while being clear about our interests. Accordingly, I agree with the committee and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on the importance of maintaining a regular dialogue. We will continue to do so under the formal treaty framework—for example, the Partnership Council, which the Foreign Secretary attended in March —or in the technical committees, which oversee implementation, and through other avenues, such as the dialogue established by the memorandum of understanding on financial services. I should say in passing that I noted my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s concerns that we should retain our own legal traditions in financial services.

On the importance of dialogue, the Prime Minister also engages at leader level with our EU and European partners on a regular basis at multilateral fora, the G7, the G20 and more recently with the European Political Community, which brings together the whole European continent. Indeed, the UK will host the fourth EPC summit in 2024, as my noble friend Lord Balfe pointed out.

However, I am not convinced that we should seek extra meetings, as proposed by the committee. As the Foreign Secretary said in his letter to the committee, the frequency of meetings should not be seen as a measure of success. What matters is outcomes. Noble Lords must remember that like other third countries, albeit we are special because of our mutual history, we must focus our demands on what really matters to our people and our businesses.

The TCA has now underpinned our trade and wider relationship with the EU for more than two years. Its committees meet regularly—more than 40 times since the beginning of 2021, with 15 more planned over the next few months. There is also extensive engagement with the EU and with individual member states outside the TCA structures. For example, the Deputy Prime Minister, Oliver Dowden, was in Italy last week and spoke on security and AI at the Pontignano conference. To pick up a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, we work hard to make engagement warm and trusting where appropriate. As my noble friend Lord Lamont said, improving our relationship with the EU is not betraying Brexit. I think there was agreement on that point.

The committee’s report rightly focused on our foreign, security and defence relationship with the EU. As our integrated review refresh makes clear, although we have left the European Union, the UK retains a significant role and stake in the future of our home region. It is essential that we work together to respond to common geopolitical threats and in support of our shared values of freedom and democracy.

In response to points made by a number of noble Lords—including my noble friend Lord Lamont, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—let me say that we do not currently consider that bringing co-operation on these matters into a formalised structure would lead to more effective co-ordination. We are focused on the substance of our co-operation and what we want to achieve together where our interests align, rather than the form. Close co-operation is vital in, for example, developing military mobility, crisis response, resilience and countering disinformation and hybrid threats where NATO and the EU have complementary strengths and tools.

The UK’s focus is strongly on strengthening our foreign and security policy relationship with the EU on Ukraine. As my noble friend Lord Tugendhat said, that is very important and likely to be important well into the future. The UK-hosted Ukraine Recovery Conference was a shining example of what can be achieved. We must remain steadfast in our support.

I say this in response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire: our approach is essentially practical. Our co-ordination with the EU demonstrates our shared commitment to European security. We are working closely not only on PESCO, where the UK is negotiating terms to better enable us to shape the rules on cross-border military transport, but on providing Ukraine with military training, equipment, cyber resilience, humanitarian and economic support, sanctions, energy resilience and countering Russian disinformation.

On the question from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the formalisation of sanctions co-operation, it is our view that our existing arrangements for co-ordinating sanctions with the EU are working well. However, I wish to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. The UK, along with our international partners, has the largest, most rigorous package of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. I think it is fair to say that we surprised Russia with the scale and level of international unity on sanctions. We will continue our efforts to combat circumvention.

Our officials are in regular contact with EU institutions and member states. We co-operate on all elements of sanctions policy, from design to implementation. Although we constantly keep our processes under review, we do not assess that a more formal arrangement would improve co-ordination. Furthermore, the enhanced partnership between the US Office of Foreign Assets Control and the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation reflects the closely corresponding function of those organisations within our respective systems. That is the answer: this structural similarity is not present in the case of the EU, which has no equivalent.

More broadly, we look forward to establishing dialogues on the important areas of cybersecurity and counter- terrorism.

Close co-operation on energy security between the UK and the EU is crucial as Europe decouples from Russian hydrocarbons. We expect to continue proactively engaging on planning for next winter and beyond, ensuring stable energy supplies while reaching our respective decarbonisation goals. We are also pleased to have resumed participation in the North Seas Energy Cooperation with both the EU and other friends. Exploiting the huge renewable potential of the region will boost European energy production, enhance our energy security and support the transition to net zero.

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Today, the Prime Minister reiterated our commitment to net zero by 2050 and set out a path for achieving it in a fair, proportionate way. Our new approach is pragmatic, proportionate and realistic because the key is maintaining the British people’s consent on reaching net zero by 2050. I think people will come to understand that.

The Government are committed to working with partners such as the EU to find international solutions to carbon leakage, an issue that was raised by the committee. We are following developments on the CBAM closely ahead of the transitional reporting phase, which will launch on 1 October, and engaging with the Commission to discuss technical considerations relevant to UK manufacturers. The UK raised the CBAM at the Trade Specialised Committee on Goods in 2021 and 2022 and is currently in discussion with the EU on the agenda for this autumn’s committees. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will be glad to know that the Government have consulted on measures to combat carbon leakage, will consider the responses carefully and will issue a response in due course.

The UK has ambitious carbon pricing through our emissions trading scheme and carbon price support mechanism. The TCA commits the UK to co-operating on carbon pricing; discussions on this issue would be covered by the Trade Specialised Committee on Level Playing Field for Open and Fair Competition and Sustainable Development. We remain open to the possibility of linking the UK ETS internationally and continue to work collaboratively with a range of like-minded nations to tackle our shared climate challenges. We will update noble Lords in due course. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on the subject of energy flows but I think she is probably aware of the interconnector arrangements that we have.

The issue of mobility is an important part of our relationship with the EU. The withdrawal agreement provided for the protection of the rights of more than 5 million EU citizens to remain indefinitely in the UK, as well as to work and access public services as they did before the UK left the EU. Since leaving, the Government have focused the immigration system towards securing the skilled labour that businesses need to stay competitive and innovative.

The Government agree on the value of cultural and educational exchanges between the UK and other nations and will continue to support opportunities for young people, which have featured in the comments of several noble Lords this evening. We are exploring new bilateral youth mobility schemes with international partners, including our European neighbours. In response to the request from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for an update on discussions with the EU and member states, he will understand that I cannot go into detail but there are live discussions and I can confirm that Parliament will be updated as appropriate; I hope that will also be welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. We already have 10 youth mobility scheme agreements with other international partners, including Canada, New Zealand and Japan. We recently agreed arrangements with Andorra and Uruguay. The majority of EU member states have working holiday agreements with third countries so we continue to explore the possibilities.

We also recognise the enormous contribution of the UK’s creative and cultural industries. Since we left the EU, we have engaged with EU member states on entry requirements and the difficult issue of touring artists, which we used to discuss when I was on the committee. Now, only three member states—Portugal, Malta, and Cyprus—do not offer any visa or work permit-free routes.

Noble Lords have talked about Erasmus+. The Government chose not to participate in Erasmus+ for the 2021-27 programme, deciding instead to introduce a global scheme and provide more opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Turing scheme now funds 40,000 placements in 160 destinations across the world. The Government believe that it is right to prioritise funding outbound mobilities under the scheme at the present time. As the report made clear, there have been considerable benefits for that, including for disadvantaged students.

As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising said, Brexit has allowed the UK to carve out its own trade policy. As an independent trading nation, we now have 70 trade agreements in place, including new deals with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, with Australia, with New Zealand and through the new Singapore partnership, which was mentioned during the debate. The freedom to strike such deals opens up many new opportunities in goods as well as services, our exports of which reached record highs in 2022 under current prices. We should of course celebrate the facts that the TCA is the world’s biggest zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA and that the EU collectively remains our largest trading partner.

A number of noble Lords mentioned our border target operating model, which was published in August. It set out our new approach to how security and SPS controls would be risk based and benefit from our new ambitious single trade window, which is designed to simplify and digitalise border trade in goods, and help smaller businesses. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred to it. We continue to work with stakeholders to prepare and we updated the House in a definitive Written Statement at the beginning of September.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, raised some questions and concerns about small businesses. There has been a small delay to help businesses to adapt, which will also minimise the inflationary impact. I confirm that we did discuss these matters with the EU and member state veterinarians and there were extensive discussions with trade bodies.

The committee recommended that the Government should seek an agreement with the EU on SPS controls. The Government are open to this and, with the advent of the BTOM, there is more incentive for a deal. However, it must be based on equivalence and not on alignment to EU rules.

As several noble Lords said, the leader of the Opposition recently called for a much closer trading relationship with the EU. This is puzzling and, my experience would suggest, naive. It also risks returning us to the divisions of the past seven years after the referendum instead of focusing, as we should, on our national priorities. The Government’s approach, building incrementally on what we have already achieved, is much more likely to bear fruit.

We have heard a range of opinions in this place. Many—I think most—think that leaving the European Union was a mistake and that we should be binding ourselves closer to the EU. Others favour divergence. The Government are taking a pragmatic approach. We believe in a mature relationship with the EU— maximising the TCA, tackling shared geostrategic challenges such as Russian aggression against Ukraine, which has brought the defenders of democracy together, and respectfully disagreeing on areas where we have different views. That is the best approach for the UK.

I am grateful to noble Lords for this debate. The House will be glad to know that the Foreign Secretary will be addressing members of the European Affairs Committee in an evidence session in October.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, I clearly cannot speak for Portugal, but I understand that it is looking for reciprocal arrangements in the matters to which the noble Baroness referred.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Viscount for that information. Perhaps we could have a word on the detail.

Afghan Resettlement

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

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

With the permission of the House, I will repeat a Statement made today by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs:

“Mr Speaker, since June 2021, around 24,600 people from Afghanistan have been safely relocated to the United Kingdom. We owe them a debt of gratitude— and, in return, our offer has been generous. The UK Government have granted all Afghans relocated through safe and legal routes indefinite leave to remain, including the immediate right to work, alongside access to the benefits system and vital health, education, and employment support. Given the unprecedented speed and scale of the 2021 evacuation, we warmly welcomed our Afghan friends into temporary hotel accommodation until settled accommodation could be found. However, bridging hotels are not—and were never designed to be—a permanent solution.

Indeed, in a Statement to this House in March, I made it clear that it was unjustifiable for around a third of those relocated from Afghanistan to still be living in costly bridging accommodation up to 18 months after arriving to safety in the United Kingdom. Long-term residency in hotels prevented some families from properly putting down roots and was costing UK taxpayers £1 million a day. This was not sustainable. That is why, at the end of April, we began issuing notices to quit to the 8,000 individuals who remained in bridging accommodation, making clear that access to costly hotels would end following a minimum three-month notice period, and encouraging moves into settled accommodation.

I am pleased to confirm that, as of 31 August, the Government have successfully ended the use of bridging hotels for legally resettled Afghans. We estimate that over 85 per cent of those who were in bridging accommodation at the end of March 2023 have been helped into homes or pre-matched into settled accommodation. Ending the provision of bridging accommodation was the right thing to do for our Afghan friends, who can now get on with rebuilding their lives, and represents a fairer deal for the British taxpayer. Indeed, it was not right to continue to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for costly bridging hotels when—as we have demonstrated—settled accommodation could be found for the overwhelming majority of guests. This required a considerable national effort and represents a significant national achievement. I therefore want to extend my thanks to colleagues across central government, as well as to local authorities and third sector partners, who have all played a part. Without dedicated caseworking teams and councils, in addition to the £285 million funding package I announced in March, this mammoth task would not have been possible.

Not only are we on track to deliver 1,200 homes for Afghans through the local authority housing fund, which will help to build a sustainable stock of affordable accommodation for the future, but we have mobilised the generosity of the Great British public by creating an innovative new Afghan housing portal, which enabled conscientious landlords to offer their rental properties directly to families. Furthermore, each local authority that receives an Afghan family can access £20,500 per person over three years to provide wraparound integration support, as well as additional funding for English language classes. I urge local authorities to continue taking advantage of this generous funding offer that the Government have put in place.

As I told the House in July, the Government have made time-limited interim accommodation available to a minority of families. This is available only to those for whom a move would disrupt ongoing medical treatment at a specific hospital, and those who have been pre-matched to a property that will be available before the end of December. As of 31 August, over 80% of those in time-limited interim accommodation were already matched to a property. We have already seen over 200 people move out of interim accommodation and into settled accommodation since, with more leaving every week.

As I have set out, the overwhelming majority of Afghans have now moved into settled accommodation or been pre-matched to a property. This is a testament to the significant central government support that has been put in place. Despite this support, however, some families have moved into temporary accommodation under local authority homelessness provision. This is less than 5% of the 24,600 people who have relocated from Afghanistan, and of those families in temporary accommodation around a quarter have a property to move into over the coming weeks.

Others in temporary accommodation have, regrettably, turned down suitable offers of accommodation, and I have been clear and honest from the outset that, where this happens, another government offer will not be forthcoming. At a time when there are many pressures on the taxpayer and on the housing market, it is not right that people can reject perfectly suitable offers of accommodation and expect to remain in taxpayer-funded hotels. However, in recognition of the pressures that councils may face as a result of housing Afghans in temporary accommodation, an additional £9,150 per household has been made available to councils by central government. This is in addition to the wider £2 billion available over three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.

Let me be clear: we have not left Afghan families without a roof over their heads. I continue to work closely with central and local government partners to help the small minority of families in local authority-provided temporary accommodation to find settled accommodation across the UK. But we must all continue to play our part in delivering a helping hand to our Afghan friends, to whom we owe so much. I encourage those who can to offer private rented accommodation, or to speak to their local council, or list their property on the Government’s Afghan housing portal, which remains operational.

We also take seriously our commitment to resettling Afghans yet to arrive in the UK, including those eligible for our schemes who are still in Afghanistan. But our efforts to move people out of hotels has shown how vital it is that they are moved directly into long-term, settled accommodation, where they can put down roots in the community. That is why we are taking forward plans to source suitable accommodation ahead of facilitating new arrivals.

Welcoming people who come to the UK through safe and legal routes has always been, and will always be, a vital way in which our country helps those in need. In this spirit, I look forward to welcoming more of those who loyally served alongside the UK’s Armed Forces in Afghanistan, as well as those who stood up for British values, often at great personal risk, in the months ahead. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I agree wholeheartedly with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, about the debt we owe to the Afghans who served with us, which is noted in the Statement that the Minister just repeated. We need to reiterate that, because the Statement in many ways is almost like a Home Office document: “Right, we’ve got this issue, we’ve relocated people. Maybe this is the end”.

In the other place, the Statement was given by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Johnny Mercer, so there was a very clear link to veterans. That is important, because the people we are talking about and their families are people who served alongside the British Army. We still owe them a debt. Operation Pitting was fantastic, but we left so many people behind.

I pay tribute to the Government for relocating 24,600 people, but that has to be the start. While it is clearly right that we are not using bridging accommodation for anything other than very temporary care, what accommodation will be available for those many people who are in Pakistan awaiting moves to the United Kingdom—a safe and legal route, in the Government’s language? What is being done to support those people who are still in Afghanistan?

The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, mentioned a case that was talked about in the other place this afternoon. There are still many Afghans living in fear of their lives. They have not become more secure since 2021; they have become less secure. They have been in so-called safe houses and moved from one safe house to another. In the final paragraph of this welcome Statement—well, parts of it are welcome—there is a commitment still to welcome those eligible to come under ARAP. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to help people get out of Afghanistan? Some of those people who are eligible for ARAP—or would have been eligible had the terms not changed—are now being told they can be considered under the ACRS. Here I am talking very much about the British Council teachers and contractors. What is being done to help them?

If they get out—if they find people who will smuggle them out of Afghanistan—will His Majesty’s Government actually give them indefinite leave to remain and all the benefits that entails if they make it to the United Kingdom, or are they going to be told, “Sorry, you would have been eligible if only you had risked your life a little bit longer in Afghanistan, but now you’ve come here illegally and unsafely you’re no longer eligible”? That is what very many people fear.

In terms of accommodation, clearly it is right to move families into permanent accommodation. But there are cases of young people who have been out of school. Part of the pledge to our Afghan friends is that there will be education. Can the Minister tell us how many Afghans under the age of 19 are out of school and how far the relocation from temporary accommodation to permanent accommodation in other parts of the country is impacting on the education of young people, particularly young women?

I would also like to know whether those Afghans who have allegedly rejected “suitable” accommodation have really understood that the accommodation is suitable. Is it affordable? Does the Government’s offer really enable them to take up those offers? It goes back to one of the questions that my noble friend Lady Falkner asked in the Statement on the Post Office: does everybody understand the bureaucracy? Are people giving up suitable accommodation because they have not really understood what is available?

It is good that we have rehoused 24,600 people. It would be better if we had a clear road map for others who would be ARAP-eligible. My final question is: can the Minister tell us how many Afghans are homeless in the United Kingdom and how many of those are vulnerable and on the streets today?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses opposite for their comments. We are united in our vision here and a lot of the things we are discussing today have very wide support. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, I watched some of the debate in the other place and I was struck not only by the individual cases but also the support given for the work by local authorities, by the Government for the funding that has been put in and, of course, by the total commitment of the brave Afghans who worked alongside us so well.

I turn to the specific points that have been raised. Perhaps I can first tackle new arrivals, including those in third countries. We have been clear, as I said in the Statement, that we need to solve the problem here, so that those from overseas can go straight into settled accommodation, with all its advantages. We will be making further announcements in due course about this, but I emphasise that our policy is to house Afghans in settled accommodation so they can work—they have the right to work—so they can integrate into communities, so they can send their children to local schools and embed them, and so they can become rooted in their new homes and communities.

In relation to homelessness, our promise was to ensure that no Afghans were sleeping rough, and as a result of our efforts the vast majority are now settled in permanent accommodation, with fewer than 5% of families receiving homelessness support. The noble Baroness asked for a specific figure. It is 188 households; I do not have a breakdown by adults and children. The homelessness system also acts as a safety net and no family will be left without a roof over their heads. There is funding of £9,150 per family available to support councils with homelessness costs, as well as £28 per person per day for up to six months if they are placed in temporary accommodation. Of course, that is on top of the £2 billion towards dealing with homelessness and rough sleeping, which is not the subject of this Statement but is a very important priority as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made a number of points which I very much agreed with, and she mentioned the education issue, which is incredibly important—and what a horror the contrast is between the attitude to the education of women in Afghanistan and our approach here.

Although I do not have the numbers of underage Afghan children out of school, I can tell the noble Baroness that the system we have initiated had a special focus at a time when children could move into new schools in the new autumn term, which I thought was very good. There is also an educational rule that local area school places have to be found within 20 days. So we are aware of the needs of education. I should also say that in every hotel there has been help from the DWP, the Home Office and so on because we understand the importance of these issues.

Funding is also important. The Statement made clear that we have tried to be generous and to help local authorities. In addition to the £250 million expansion of the local authority housing fund, which I think is a game-changer, we have also found £32.5 million—that is £7,100 per person—for the flexible housing fund. That is both capital and revenue, which is important because it means that there may be money available for families to have a deposit on a rented house or for capital to be used to flex a house—for example, when there is a large family. The work that has been done by DLUHC and others has been innovative. There has been money for voluntary and community sector caseworkers, which I have already mentioned. That is in addition to the resettlement allowances that come from the Home Office: there is £20,520 per person integration tariff funding for resettlement, and other money is available for things like English language training, which—to go back to the point of about education—is incredibly important. We know that these brave people will be able to integrate well if their children are in school and they can move forward.

The point about bureaucracy was close to my heart. I want to make the point that pamphlets have been made in English, Pashto and Dari, so there has been a real effort to explain people’s needs. The availability of officials in hotels has also been good for that. That is something of a model, although there is of course more to do and we need to go further.

I am so grateful for the support from third countries. It has been mentioned that some people under the ARAP and ACRS schemes are still principally in Pakistan, but we are grateful to the third countries concerned for that. By moving through the existing families and getting them into permanent accommodation, it is going to be a great deal easier to get those schemes up and running properly again.

House adjourned at 8.09 pm.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.

1: Clause 2, page 2, line 13, leave out “including the NHS”

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

My Lords, in moving this Motion I will speak to Amendments 1, 4, 5, 81 and 82. I am very pleased to bring this important Bill back to the House today for consideration of amendments made in the other place. It is, I believe, a key Brexit dividend, making it possible for us to develop and implement our own procurement regime, which will be simpler, more transparent, better for small businesses and better able to meet the UK’s needs. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who contributed to the lengthy discussion on the original Bill, first introduced to this House in May last year.

In the other place, we made a number of important changes to the Bill, including a debarment appeals process, clarification of the City of London’s status under the Bill, at its request, and provisions to address trade disputes relating to procurement. Importantly, we also took significant steps to strengthen national security provisions in the Bill, creating a new mechanism that will allow us to protect public procurement from risky suppliers. We also committed to removing Chinese surveillance equipment from government departments’ sensitive sites and dedicating additional resources within the Cabinet Office to scrutinise suppliers for potential national security threats. It is now crucial that we take the Bill through to Royal Assent, so that we can implement its many useful provisions.

This first group of amendments focuses on procurement rules for healthcare services and the national procurement policy statement. They overturn amendments made to the Bill on Report in this House. Amendments 1, 81 and 82 are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the Bill and the regulation of healthcare procurements. Engagement with the NHS has identified the requirement for a bespoke regime for healthcare services to drive the integration of healthcare and the development of better, more joined-up patient pathways through healthcare systems. This responds to the idiosyncrasies of the health system, as identified by those who work in it.

The forthcoming provider selection regime is a free-standing regulatory scheme of procurement rules which commissioners of healthcare services in the NHS and local government will follow when arranging healthcare services in their area. Parliament accepted this when passing the Health and Care Act 2022, which was debated for many days in this House. The DHSC published the results of its latest consultation in July and aims to lay the regulations in Parliament this Autumn. It would be incredibly unhelpful at this critical stage for both schemes, when both the healthcare regulations and the Procurement Bill are on the cusp of delivery, to start attempting to unpick it all. Doing so would add unacceptable and entirely avoidable costs and delays to both programmes for no tangible benefit.

Amendment 1 removes from the definition of a public authority in Clause 2(2)(a) the words “including the NHS”. This addition is unnecessary because it clearly meets the test for a public authority set out at Clause 2(a), which is that it is publicly funded. This is backed up by the fact that the relevant NHS bodies to be covered by this Bill as central government authorities are identified in draft regulations to be made under the power at Schedule 1(5). These regulations were consulted on over the summer and have been welcomed in this regard. Setting out the list of central government authorities in regulations is appropriate, as updates are needed from time to time as organisations inevitably change. Moreover, the NHS is not a single legal entity and does not have a clear meaning in law, so the naming of the NHS as a public authority in Clause 2 would have reduced clarity.

I turn now to Amendments 81 and 82. The version of what was then Clause 116 inserted on Report in this House needed to be removed and replaced with a provision that enables the DHSC to proceed with the provider selection regime. This is crucial for the reasons I have already set out, and I emphasise that this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the new affirmative regulations when they are laid. I hope that I have been able to provide the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose Motions 1A and 81A deal with these matters, with sufficient reassurances and that she will not press her amendments today.

Amendments 4 and 5 removed two amendments from Report stage in the Lords relating to the national procurement policy statement. These required that, prior to publishing an NPPS, the Minister must give due regard to a number of specified principles and mandated the inclusion of a number of priorities in the NPPS itself. In respect of the first amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has subsequently tabled a modified version of it—in Motions 4A and 4B in lieu—which, as before, would require the Minister drafting the NPPS to have regard to a set of principles. The modification suggests a set of principles more in line with those we have already established in Clause 12, and I am happy to set out the Government’s stance on this issue now.

The Government recognise that these principles are important to procurement, which is why they are already reflected throughout the Bill. For example, value for money, integrity and maximising public benefit are set out as procurement objectives in Clause 12, which I have already mentioned. Contracting authorities must have regard to these when carrying out procurements, and transparency requirements already run throughout the Bill.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before we proceed further in relation to Clause 12, will my noble friend confirm that the procurement objectives in Clause 12 relate to covered procurement only—that is, procurements that are in excess of the threshold—and therefore does not include exempt contracts, whereas the national procurement policy statement applies to all procurement?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

If I may, I will come back to that when I have finished presenting. I did ask that question today; I do not think there is that much difference, but I will come back to my noble friend.

There are other specific requirements in the Bill that place obligations on contracting authorities regarding the fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination in decision-making. On value for money, I know there is concern from across the House that it is often interpreted to mean lowest cost. We have sought to address this through the move from most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender at Clause 19, which stakeholders tell us is a powerful signal in this regard.

Including a similar set of principles in respect of the NPPS risks creating duplication and confusion when we are looking to simplify the regime. However, while the NPPS should focus on the priorities of the Government of the day, many of them are already reflected in the current non-statutory NPPS introduced by this Government, and we have consistently demonstrated our commitment to them through measures such as the strengthening of social value policy following the collapse of Carillion and the procurement policy on carbon reduction introduced in 2021. In addition, the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 will continue to exist alongside the new regime established by the Bill. I hope that this will satisfy the noble Baroness.

The second amendment made by this House added a sub-section which required the inclusion of specific priorities in the national procurement policy statement relating to achieving targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021, meeting the requirements set out in the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, promoting innovation among potential suppliers and minimising the incidence of fraud. I believe that these issues are already addressed in the Bill—for example, in Clause 12—or elsewhere outside of this legislation. For example, the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires contracting authorities to consider the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area when planning specified procurement, and there are additional obligations imposed by the Environment Act 2021. From 1 November 2023, Ministers will be under a statutory duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy and will be subject to this duty when preparing the NPPS.

Finally, the scope and extent of the NPPS needs to be flexible, and these things should not be set in stone. Noble Lords have highlighted net zero, social value and innovation, but new challenges arise, such as the security threat from the Russia-Ukraine war. The Government of the day need to be able to respond to each major new challenge in an appropriate manner, without needing to change primary legislation. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 1

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have much sympathy with Motion 1A in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, because I believe that treating the NHS as a special case in any area of public policy has the effect of insulating the NHS, which is a seriously underperforming organisation that desperately needs change.

Having said that, I am afraid I cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendments. Parliament has already decided, in the shape of the Health and Care Act 2022, that the NHS should be subject to a bespoke regime. In effect, the other place was asked to think about that again when this House sent the Procurement Bill there for consideration, and it has sent it back with its response—it wants to keep a bespoke regime for the NHS—so I think we have the answer to that. My noble friend the Minister has made clear that much work has already been done on the interface between the two regimes to make sure that nothing will fall through the cracks.

This boils down to a simple difference of view; the Government want to do it one way and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, wants to do it another way. I wonder whether this is really the kind of issue that should be the subject of a prolonged battle between the two Houses. I cannot see that there is a real point of principle here. Also, as my noble friend the Minister pointed out, implementation of that new system in the NHS is already quite a long way advanced and it would appear wasteful to try to undo all that.

I turn to Motion 4A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. She has tabled a list of what she calls “priorities and principles” that Ministers must consider before publishing a national procurement policy statement. At first sight these look wholesome and unobjectionable, as one might expect. I have two main reasons for not supporting her amendment.

First, the amendment is unnecessary. Government Ministers and their officials are already focused on value for money, transparency, integrity and even, I say to my noble friend Lord Lansley, innovation. It is government policy to pursue innovation; it is already part of the day-to-day life of government. Many of these items are either implicitly or explicitly already in the law, either administrative law or general law. As has been pointed out, some already feature in the objectives for covered procurements. My noble friend the Minister explained all this in her introductory remarks. Thinking that the Government need a special list of things to think about, in statute, misunderstands the processes of government.

Secondly, the list of items always reflects today’s concerns and is not future-proofed. While some issues such as transparency seem like eternal issues, they were not always unambiguously so. Today’s obsessions with things such as environmental matters will, I predict, be overtaken by other issues of concern, whether Russia and Ukraine or something that we have not yet thought about. I am not clever enough to predict what those other things will be; I just know that the world changes and the orientation of government policy will change with it. The inclusion of a list runs a real risk of being overtaken by events, which is why it is not good legislative practice to put such lists in statute. I hope that both noble Baronesses will not feel it necessary to pursue their amendments and divide the House.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 and 3.

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 16, leave out “subsection” and insert “subsections (8A) and”

3: Clause 2, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(8A) In this Act, a reference to a public authority includes a reference to the
Common Council of the City of London.”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, in moving this Motion I will speak to the other amendments in the group.

Amendments 2, 3 and 99 ensure that the City of London is appropriately regulated by the Bill and that its private sector activities are not inappropriately captured.

Amendments 6 to 12 deal variously with abnormally low and unsuitable tenders, and the definition of disabled and disadvantaged people in contracts specifically directed to help them.

Amendment 10, which I know is of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who I thank for his co-operation on this large number of amendments, requires that any procedural breach that results in a tender being unsuitable must be material. This tightens the circumstances in which a switch to direct award can be made. The transparency notice will ensure that any awards under Clause 43 are publicised, and, if the provision is abused, there will be opportunity for suppliers to bring a challenge and for the procurement review unit to investigate.

Amendments 13 to 22, 48 to 56, and 61 to 64 deal with the publishing of KPIs, tendering timescales for utilities and non-central government contracting authorities, standards and accreditation, electronic communications, e-invoicing and payment compliance, and contract change notices.

Amendment 60 and the consequential amendments—Amendments 76, 85, 88, 90, 91 and 92—introduce an enabling power which gives the UK the ability to take retaliatory action as a result of a procurement-related dispute with a country with which we have a free trade agreement on procurement.

Amendments 65 and 66 strengthen the record-keeping obligations with the Bill, to reflect obligations under our international agreements.

Amendments 83, 87 and 89 relate to financial thresholds, ensuring that, where thresholds for the publication of KPIs need to be changed, the affirmative procedure will apply.

Amendments 95 and 96 clarify the reasonableness test in Schedule 2, following feedback from the Local Government Association.

Amendment 104 extends the new power that the Bill will insert into the Defence Reform Act by allowing regulations to ensure that, under specified circumstances, certain existing contracts, when amended, can be treated as new contracts and brought within the scope of the single-source regime. Amendment 104 relates to single-source defence contracts entered into after the Act came into force but which were below the regime threshold and are subsequently amended to a contract value above that threshold.

Amendments 23, 24, 26 to 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 39, 43, 44 to 46, 68, 72, 73, 75, 84 and 103 strengthen and ensure that the debarment and exclusion regimes in the Bill function as intended by inserting a substantive debarment appeals regime to replace the enabling power. Noble Lords will remember that, in this House, we thought it was better to have that in the Bill rather than in regulations.

Finally, the Government introduced Amendments 58, 59, 69, 70, 71, 74, 77 to 80, 86 and 93 in the other place at the request of the devolved Administrations. These amend how the legislation applies in relation to devolved procurement in Wales or Scotland and ensure that the regime runs effectively. They reflect constructive discussions.

I apologise for the number of amendments but we have sent out a letter explaining exactly what these all entail. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4.

4: Clause 13, page 10, line 9, leave out paragraph (b)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 5 to 24.

5: Clause 13, page 10, line 29, leave out subsection (4)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 25.

25: Clause 57, page 39, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) If a supplier is an excluded supplier on the basis of the supplier or an associated person being on the debarment list only by virtue of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security), the supplier is to be treated as an excluded supplier only in relation to public contracts of a kind described in the relevant entry.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendments 29, 33, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 57, 100 and 101 in this group. These amendments significantly strengthen the exclusions and debarment provisions on national security grounds. I hope they will further assure noble Lords that the Government are taking the issue of national security seriously and are ready to take action. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who I see in his seat and who has worked tirelessly to raise this issue in the House, for our constructive meetings.

The new amendments will enable a Minister of the Crown to take a stronger approach in response to a specific risk profile of a particular supplier and make targeted decisions about whether the debarment should be mandatory for particular types of contracts, depending on the nature of the risk. If the supplier poses an unacceptable risk in relation to selected goods—for example, networked communications equipment—the Minister will be able to enter on the debarment list that the supplier is an excluded supplier for contracts for the supply or support of that type of equipment.

The entry may also, or as an alternative, stipulate that the supplier is excluded from contracts relating to certain locations or sites, or from contracts let by certain contracting authorities. This removes discretion from contracting authorities regarding exclusions where a supplier poses a threat for particular contracts, thereby reducing the risk of a supplier being allowed to participate in those procurements. By allowing this type of targeted and proportionate approach, we can direct that suppliers must be excluded where the risks are unacceptable and allow contracting authorities to make appropriate choices where the risk is manageable—for example, for the provision of pencils or plastic furniture.

Amendment 31 commits a Minister of the Crown to keep suppliers under review for potential investigation for debarment on national security grounds. This amendment commits Ministers to proactively consider new debarment investigations where there is evidence of risk so that the Government can act effectively and on time. We believe this would be highly advantageous in minimising the risk of those who pose a threat to our national security being awarded public contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I thank both noble Lords for such excellent speeches on really important issues and important amendments that have been brought back for further discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, again and again draws our attention to where we need to act on wrongs in this world. Clearly, we must do all we can to tackle modern slavery, genocide and crimes against humanity. He is right to draw our attention to the serious examples he gave us in his speech of where this is happening. We believe that procurement policy can and should contribute to that end where it can. I say to the Minister that the Government have listened to much of what the noble Lord has said; we have moved forward to some extent on this.

My noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment clearly spells out why we need to be doing something about this. Reading his amendment, what struck me was the definition. I will read it, because I think it is at the crux of this:

“‘Forced organ harvesting’ means killing a person without their consent so that their organs may be removed and transplanted into another person”.


I cannot think of many things more appalling than that, so we fully support my noble friend. He deserves the thanks of the House for bringing this forward. He has our full support, but I wish the Government would consider amending the Bill in this way.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness on the excellence of the two speeches we have had during this important debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, again for his contribution. I am delighted that we have been able to agree on this matter so that the changes we have agreed can be moved forward. I thought his speech, ranging from what the Co-op and Tesco are doing, through the Cambridge spies, the absolute horror of what is being imposed on the Uighurs, and all the other things he said that I will not repeat, bears reading and reflecting on.

On the use of surveillance equipment—to respond to one point the noble Lord made—in the wider public sector, I should add that if the Government consider the risk to be intolerable, they are able to take action. That does not have to be enshrined in primary legislation. On the point about parliamentary scrutiny, the Government carefully consider and respond to all Select Committee recommendations. The annual written report on surveillance cameras, once laid in Parliament, will be available to all committees. I am sure it will receive appropriate scrutiny and a great deal of interest.

Turning to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Hayman, we all agree that organ harvesting is a horrific practice. However, given that we already have provisions in this Bill relating to professional misconduct—which will cover organ harvesting—it would seem inappropriate and odd to single out this particular, albeit horrific, practice in this Bill, and not others, especially given that the risk of this practice occurring in public contracts is low. While the issue is of key importance, the amendment itself largely duplicates the Government’s existing efforts. I cannot agree with the criticism of this given all we have done to try to improve this Bill and make the arrangements better. As I have said, there is a reference to organ harvesting in the NHS legislation. To pick up on the various security areas we have now in the Cabinet Office, they will work closely together. That is how you defeat the enemy on these things.

The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken in the other place on these issues today, and the Leader of the House will be repeating the Statement shortly when we finish this business. Obviously, that is some context. This Government have already taken steps to act on the risk from foreign influence and demonstrated that they are willing to act when the risk is intolerable. Our action on the risk of using certain surveillance equipment on government-sensitive sites was necessary and proportionate. This Bill will help us further, as the national security debarment provisions will enable us to act in public procurements where we see malign influence. This is a major change that has been made to this Bill. It is very encouraging that this House has influenced it and then welcomed it on its return from the other place. This is how good legislation is made, I hope.

It is crucial that we bring this most important Bill to Royal Assent as quickly as possible. I hope noble Lords will back us today, and I hope that in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment. In any event, we need to move forward and get this Bill on the statute book.

Commons Amendment 25 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 26 to 46.

26: Clause 58, page 39, line 40, after “are” insert “continuing or”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 47.

47: After Clause 64, page 44, line 34, leave out Clause 65

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 48 to 80.

48: Clause 66, page 45, line 30, at end insert—
“(5A) The implied term does not prevent a contracting authority—
(a) requiring the use of a particular system in relation to electronic invoices;
(b) in the case of a defence authority (as defined in section 7(5)), requiring the use of a system that requires the payment of fees by the supplier.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 81.

81: Page 74, line 16, leave out Clause 116

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 82 to 101.

82: After Clause 116, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to disapply this Act in relation to procurement by NHS in England
(1) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make provision for the purpose of disapplying any provision of this Act in relation to regulated health procurement.
(2) In this section—
“regulated health procurement” means the procurement of goods or services by a relevant authority that is subject to provision made under section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act 2006 (procurement of healthcare services etc for the health service in England), whether or not that provision is in force;
“relevant authority” has the meaning given in that section.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 102.

102: Schedule 7, page 110, line 33, leave out paragraph 15

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 103 and 104.

103: Schedule 7, page 111, line 44, at end insert—
““event” means a conviction, decision, ruling, failure or other event by virtue of which a discretionary exclusion ground would apply to a supplier;”

Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete: Public Buildings

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent of the problem of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in public buildings other than schools.

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

My Lords, the Government have acted decisively to tackle the issue, taking a proportionate approach informed by experts. The Office of Government Property, which is part of the Cabinet Office, wrote to all government property leaders in 2019 and again in September 2022, highlighting safety notices on RAAC and signposting Institution of Structural Engineers guidance on identification and remediation. It is the responsibility of individual organisations such as departments, arm’s-length bodies or wider organisations such as NHS trusts, to manage their own buildings.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Answer, but there is something of a metaphor for the Government in this issue of RAAC—time expired and liable to collapse with little or no notice. Is the Chancellor going to agree to “spend whatever it takes” to fix the problems in housing, hospitals and other public buildings? The Minister just mentioned the Cabinet Office review, but what about the Ministry of Defence review into its buildings that I understood had to be completed by July? How many hospitals are going to be partially closed as a result of work on RAAC and will the Government list them in the way they have done for schools? Does the Minister agree with the head of the National Audit Office that getting value for money depends on doing the “unflashy but essential” things such as maintenance, in addition to what you might call a sticking-plaster approach that ends up costing more money? In short, can the Minister understand why some people think that this is an autoclaved aerated crumbling Government in need of replacement?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That was a huge array of questions more suitable for debate, but perhaps I can make clear that the Government have agreed to fund extensive RAAC mitigation works across the NHS and the education estate by capital funding allocations. We will consider the approach to any RAAC funding in other public sector estates on a case-by-case basis. As regards the MoD, the programme of surveys is ongoing, given the size of the estate, and I know that my right honourable friend the new Defence Secretary takes this matter very seriously.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Comptroller and Auditor-General wrote yesterday in the Times that the problems were caused by “underinvestment” in the physical estate and

“by the lack of a robust long-term programme of building maintenance and replacement”,

and suggested that that needs now to be urgently addressed. Can the Minister assure us that the Government are now willing to develop such a long-term programme and raise the level of investment in the public estate, or are they going to give in to the continuing demands from right-wing newspapers and their own Back Benches to cut taxes first and not put the money in?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The Government are investing and will continue to invest in public sector buildings. Take education: the Government have allocated £15 billion since 2015 to keep schools safe and operational. In this area, professional advice has evolved over time. Successive Governments since 1994 have managed the risk of RAAC and will continue to do so. I have explained the central advice given to help individual public sector bodies manage their responsibilities in the way that all building and property owners need to do.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, it is my understanding that four out of five schools have asbestos in them, as do many public buildings, including this one. If the concrete part of a building is now degrading and exposing the asbestos, at which point its disturbance makes it extremely dangerous, what are the Government’s plans to budget and implement a way to deal with the asbestos and the concrete at the same time?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As the noble Lords knows, there is of course a legal framework for managing asbestos through the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and I refer to the expert advice and involvement of independent building experts that have played a very important part in identifying RAAC in places such as hospitals and managing that in a responsible way.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the test of a good Government is not whether a crisis pops up on their watch that they have to deal with but how Ministers respond. There are two options—you can roll up your sleeves and get on with it or you can dither, delay, cut funding and blame others while expecting to be thanked. As the scale of the schools problem emerges, and given that the Government cut Building Schools for the Future funding, the Minister said just now that the Cabinet Office wrote to all government departments in 2019. Can she tell the House whether the Government now have a grasp of the extent of the problem to which courts, hospitals and other buildings used by the public are affected by this? If they have, given that the letter went out in 2019, when will that information be published?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Actually, we have rolled up our sleeves in this case, to quote the noble Baroness. We wrote in 2019, and again in 2022 after Covid. A great deal of management on a risk-based basis has been undertaken across the public sector, drawing on professional expert advice, because it is very important that that is done. More recently, in June 2023, the Cabinet Office set up an expert working group under the OGP to look at RAAC. Of course, that has been meeting very frequently since the information, which has been the subject of other Question sessions, became available in schools in August.

[Lord Mendoza (Con)]

My Lords, we are learning about a range of RAAC in all building types across the nation’s estate, from theatres to hospitals—sometimes in small amounts, sometimes in big amounts—so it is a complex picture that will need remedying or, crucially, mitigation. Does my noble friend agree that the approach that government takes includes advice, as she described briefly, from technical experts such as the Institution of Structural Engineers? If so, can she say more?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I cannot help but agree with my noble friend: it is absolutely right to follow expert advice in this sort of case. That is why the OPA wrote out on a number of occasions, and it is why my right honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, had discussions with the Institution of Structural Engineers only this week. We are pursuing this, but we are ensuring that those who are responsible are putting in the effort and making the changes that are necessary—and we are giving central support, as I explained, in relation to education and health.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, many universities are likely to suffer from this problem, and some, of course, also have hospital trusts associated with them. The noble Baroness said it was up to NHS trusts and individual institutions to manage their estates, but she knows that that is not a sustainable position, because this problem is not evenly spread across the sector and will impact very heavily on individual organisations. What more will the Government do and announce in the near future to assist those affected? I declare an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University.

[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.

Electoral Commission: Data Breaches

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following recent disclosures of a data breach from the Electoral Commission, what action they are taking to mitigate the effects of this and to prevent data breaches across the public sector.

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

My Lords, since the Electoral Commission reported the incident to the National Cyber Security Centre, the Government have worked closely with the commission to provide it with expertise and support to deal with the incident and guard against the risk of future attacks. Through our government cybersecurity strategy, we are reducing the likelihood of data breaches in the public sector and the impact of the breaches that happen.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, given the supplementaries to the previous Question, which touched on this whole issue of security, security breaches and the awareness of government departments and individuals of what they should and should not do and how they should work with others, is my noble friend now absolutely clear about where this breach came from and whether it has been secured, let alone whether things will be better going forward?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is a matter for the Electoral Commission, which is independent of government and accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Since it reported the incident to the NCSC, we have been working closely to provide expertise and support. The Electoral Commission has made a statement that the breach was limited and not a great deal of new information has gone into the public domain, and it has given advice on what citizens might do. On the cause, I am not sure I have anything to add to the general comment I made on operational matters.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if I am honest, the Minister’s answers are quite unsatisfactory and do not answer the question the noble Lord asked. She will recall consideration of the Elections Bill, during which many of us considered that the Government unnecessarily put in place measures to make it harder to vote. Now, it seems that the backdoor was open to hackers and perhaps more alarmingly, nobody noticed for 10 months. There are two issues about confidence here, the first of which is confidence in the integrity of the system, which the Government said they were interested in. Today, however, the Minister has not been able to give us any detail on what action is being taken to protect the electoral register. Secondly, how do we instil in the public confidence in continuing to register if their data can be hacked without anybody noticing for almost a year?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I may be able to help on that. An independent investigation into the attack revealed that the actors were able to access only reference copies of the closed electoral register and the commission’s email system. Those have information about electors including their names, addresses, electoral numbers and franchise markers. They do not contain more confidential information such as national insurance numbers, nationality data, age, or anonymous electors, so the extent of the breach was limited. However, I emphasise that the Electoral Commission is independent, and we have done our best to help it through our cybersecurity expertise in order to make sure that the hackers have been completely taken out of the system and there are no future risks. So, the public can feel reassured in that regard.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, on a related matter, for a long time there has been discussion about the commercialisation of the electoral register and it being available for sale. It seems to me that the principle of making available for sale something we are required to respond to by law for the proper conduct of elections is questionable. However, can the Minister at least indicate the scale of the income received from the sale of electoral registers, and the companies and organisations to which they are sold?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not have available any commercial information. It would be a matter for the Electoral Commission, and no doubt there is some information in its annual report. I am afraid I am new to this subject, but legislation sets out which individuals and organisations are entitled to receive copies of the open electoral register from local authorities. The commission, of course, uses the register for various purposes because it is a regulator. There are other organisations, as the noble Lord suggested, such as credit reference agencies, political parties and the Office for National Statistics—which does such an important job—which are entitled to receive copies of the register.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Elections Act extended voting rights to overseas citizens for their lifetimes. As it is implemented it will have to rely on a great deal of electronic communication, as the postal service will be far too slow. Have the Government considered that this lays our electoral records more easily open to hacking? Has thought been given to the problems of managing a system such as this? We want a great deal more people who live in distant countries to vote, but the time allowed in the electoral campaign for that will be very difficult to manage without the use of electronic systems.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Preventing interference in future UK elections is an absolute priority for the Government—we have to protect our democratic processes. The Government have set up a Defending Democracy Taskforce to drive forward work to protect UK democratic processes, which I hope will be of some comfort to the noble Lord. The taskforce works across government and with Parliament, the intelligence communities, the devolved Administrations, local authorities, the private sector and civil society—a whole of society approach. It has recently set up a new enduring election security capability: the joint election security and preparedness unit. This will make sure that we are fully prepared for the next general election and that there are not attacks on the integrity of our systems.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, data breaches in public life are hugely worrying, particularly if people’s lives are at risk. It might be slightly outside the Minister’s recall but is she aware, and have the Government taken an interest in the fact, that there was a huge data breach in Northern Ireland which actually put the lives of police officers at risk? We have just heard that the chief constable has resigned as a result of that. Would the Minister please ask the Home Secretary to look very seriously at this and at some of the other issues that are now coming out about the impartiality of the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point, not least since I raised it myself about 10 minutes ago when I was being briefed for this Question. There was some comfort to know, for today’s purposes, that it was not a cyber incident, but it was a very unfortunate security breach, linked, as she will know, to an FoI process error. We must learn from this. As I said in answer to the previous question, there is a combination of things that we must do to try to prevent this kind of thing ever happening again and to ensure that the impact is minimised, if and when there are breaches of the system. Obviously, that is what they are trying to do in relation to Northern Ireland.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, the stakes are very high when these data breaches take place, because they erode public confidence in allowing organisations to collect and use our private data. I am thinking in particular of the NHS, and its great reliance on data; if it can analyse and collect information, this could be of huge help in solving medical problems and curing diseases. To prevent these things in future, what is being done to ensure that the NHS computer system cannot be hacked and that people can have real confidence in it being allowed to collect their data?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I described the new, more resilient system that we have got. There is a big focus on cyber and cyberattacks; individual Government Ministers take that very seriously. We have set up a new system called GovAssure, which the Deputy Prime Minister announced in the spring, to make sure that different parts of the public sector are better prepared and able to deal with these points. The National Cyber Security Centre has been much strengthened—actually, it also does a very good job for outside organisations, as I remember from when I was involved in an NGO and on the Back Benches. We are making progress with these things. It is important that we use electronic data, as has already been said by several noble Lords. The key is to make people take the necessary steps—often personal steps—to ensure that systems are not opened up to hackers, attackers and hostile states.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, we all know that this incident happened in August 2021. It was brought to the attention of the Electoral Commission in October 2022, which made it public in August of this year. As a follow-on to my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon’s question, could the Minister indicate why political parties and the public were not informed of this data breach that would impact all the public throughout the UK? Why did that not happen? In Northern Ireland, we have had the PSNI data breach, which impacts all the workforce, both service personnel and civilian staff. Maybe whenever she talks to the Cabinet Office, she could impress on it the need to ensure that political policing is ended.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is a point well made. In a sense, the noble Baroness’s question is about why this took so long, especially in relation to the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission made a statement on this—it is, as I had to emphasise right at the beginning, independent and accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee—in which it said that it needed to take several steps to remove the hackers and that it was necessary to do that before making a statement. It also said that it was determined to protect against future hacking and that by making a public statement that would have been more difficult. However, the noble Baroness’s point is well made; being transparent with the public is an ambition that we all share—subject, of course, to security needs.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, may I follow that up with the Minister? Is she certain that the data breach notification requirements under data protection law were followed? As I understand it, the Electoral Commission said that it knew about this in October 2022, and yet the Information Commissioner’s Office appears to have been told only a month ago, and there are requirements—certainly there are under GDPR—for the public to be told, normally within 72 hours. What have the Government ascertained about whether these requirements were followed?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her point. I will write to her, if I may.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to make exactly the same point, but I was also going to add: who has taken responsibility for this breach at the Electoral Commission, and what action has been taken? It is very quick to punish the political parties when they cross the line, so what has been done there, or is this yet another example of something going completely wrong and no one taking responsibility?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I note the tone of my noble friend’s comment and understand the frustration that noble Lords in this House feel.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Did the breach include any of the marked registers from the polling stations—the noble Baroness must know what they are? Are they kept in digital form and, if so, for how long?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I understand it, it was reference copies. The registers—as the noble Lord probably knows—are kept by local authorities and by the constituency election officers. I think the answer—I will certainly confirm it—is that the marked registers would not have been made available.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel that the noble Baroness speaking on behalf of the Government is being slightly complacent about all of this. We of course welcome the fact that the Electoral Commission is an independent body, and we hope that that will continue. However, the whole purpose of hostile state actors in disrupting or breaching the security of the Electoral Commission is to undermine public faith and confidence in the institutions of the country, as the right reverend Prelate said. That has to be a fundamental concern of the Government. How will they address that and make sure that we can continue to have confidence in our institutions and that they cannot be undermined by state actors, as may have happened in this case?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

On a positive note, I will repeat two big things. First, we set up the Defending Democracy Taskforce to drive forward work on protecting UK democratic processes, because we knew and feared, as long ago as last year when this was set up, that there could be problems, and it has now set up a new and enduring election security capability—the JESP unit. The second point is that all the work we are doing through the National Cyber Security Centre is making things better, although this is not an easy area—whoever tries to run this area would discover that. Therefore, things such as GovAssure, the work on cyber skills, the web check and the resilience framework that we talked about in answer to the previous Question, as well as training—which nobody has mentioned and which I know the noble Lord is always advocating—remain very important.

UK Government Resilience Framework

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the resilience framework set out the Government’s commitment to publishing the first annual statement to Parliament on civil contingencies risk and performance on resilience by 2025. Both Houses will be updated in due course regarding the timing, form and content of the statement, but the Government’s intention is to publish the first statement during this calendar year.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance. Could she tell the House with regard to that statement, against each of the various risks outlined in the latest risk register, what mitigation arrangements are in place, and do the Government think that they are adequate? What arrangements will be made for both Houses to debate that statement?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The statement is still in preparation. I take note of the noble Lord’s points and thank him for the contributions that he has made, notably on the debate that we had on resilience in January, which was very helpful. The Deputy Prime Minister has committed to giving a statement to Parliament this year. Both Houses will be given the opportunity to scrutinise this, and the Government intend to update both Houses in the appropriate way.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the resilience framework statement is full of calls to involve the whole of society:

“we need a shared understanding of the risks we face … We are committed to working with partners, industry and academia from across the UK to implement this Framework … including UK Government departments, devolved administrations, local authorities, emergency services and the private … and community sectors … so we must be more transparent and empower everyone to make a contribution”.

I am not aware of any great public information campaign having started yet. Is that also planned?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the developments in openness that there have been. We now have a UK Resilience Forum, which was established to bring together the voluntary and community sectors, emergency responders, business and so on. We have published a very chunky National Risk Register, which is available for public comment—and, of course, we are gearing up the local resilience forums, which are led by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We have announced new pilots this summer to work out how best to engage local communities, develop community risk registers and so on.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that in June the first ever head of resilience was appointed and the new promised COBRA unit came into being, promised in the integrated review. The first, the head of resilience, of course deals with long-term resilience challenges while the second is more to respond to emergencies, but, after all, these emergencies are usually immediate manifestations of just the same challenges. Why, therefore do these two bodies sit in different reporting frameworks within the Cabinet Office? Is it not sensible that they should be in the same reporting structures and that the best chance of improving resilience lies in encouraging some sort of symbiotic relationship between them?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think we are very aware of the need for symbiosis and have indeed been thinking about that in the way we have set this up and led the way, with the resilience framework, which has been widely welcomed; with the setting up of the Resilience Directorate under Mary Jones; and with various other measures. Exactly how the Cabinet Office is organised is an internal matter; the key thing is that we should make progress in this area, and I have actually been pleased that, since I became a Minister at the Cabinet Office, I have seen what my colleagues have done to progress this very important matter.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend think that we ought to be taking far more seriously our dependence on technology? The recent example of the entire national air traffic control system being shut down and people being stranded for weeks is a very good example of that. While all these committees and other organisations are being set up, is there not a fundamental problem that we are so dependent now on technology and therefore very vulnerable?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think my noble friend puts it extremely well. Of course, it is at the heart of the work we are doing on resilience; indeed, we have set up a new department, DSIT, to focus much more closely on technology and AI—both the opportunities and the risk that it brings. Technology has improved our lives so much, but we certainly need to keep a close eye on things. The NATS case wrecked many people’s holidays and was very unfortunate; I know my grandchildren were all stuck for four days. The case has been looked at carefully: it was not a cybersecurity incident but, obviously, it is going to be looked at independently by the Civil Aviation Authority and there will be a report to the Secretary of State for Transport.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

On that topic, the Government should be working constantly to improve the UK’s cybersecurity capabilities against artificial intelligence and state-linked cyberattacks, in particular. This is one of the reasons, presumably, that the Government have agreed to publish an annual statement on resilience, but given reports at the weekend of a very damaging security breach where Russia-linked hackers targeted the MoD, can the Minister confirm that the forthcoming annual statement will indeed set out the Government’s necessary actions, including skills development, to urgently strengthen our cybersecurity?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have to be careful in commenting on operational matters, and I have already said that the statement is still under consideration, but I very much agree with the noble Baroness’s emphasis on skills and cyber skills. Indeed, I chair a subgroup trying to improve cyber skills across departments in government, because there are a number of professional areas that the tech revolution has highlighted, and cyber is definitely one of them.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, historically we have not been taking resilience seriously enough in this country—there is no doubt about it. My noble friend Lord Harris has done a lot of work in this area, and I think he should be congratulated on that. We absolutely have to have more focus. It is all very well saying that how this is organised in the Cabinet Office is an interior matter; actually, it is crucial for the nation that we get this right, that we are properly focused and that we take it as seriously as we should. Yes, there are lots of things happening, but I feel that we need to really move on this one, because resilience is probably one of the greatest threats we face to the nation.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Perhaps I can agree with the kind words about the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the work he has done in this area and continues to do. I have very much valued his advice. I also agree that resilience is incredibly important: it is one of our ambitions to improve this. The Deputy Prime Minister has personally taken this to heart and been very engaged and the whole set-up that we now have, both on shorter-term risks and the more strategic risks, is totally different to what one would have seen five years ago.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, rather than decry technology, would it not be better to do the opposite: encourage our schools to teach much more science and technology and respond more effectively to technology and the downsides that, like anything else, it will always have?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I very much agree. I have been a great advocate for making sure that children are taught both digital opportunity and digital risk. I will make sure that my noble friend Lady Barran is aware of the noble Lord’s comments, because it is important that the curriculum focuses on not only maths, literature and writing but the tech revolution and how it is changing the world so profoundly, as we all see from our own families.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, at the risk of all the nice words about me being rescinded, could I follow up the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on public engagement? As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, this is National Preparedness Month in the United States; every state is taking part in initiatives to try to ensure that the general population is aware of and ready to face risks. In Sweden, every household has received the booklet If Crisis or War Comes, which has practical things that they can do. When will the UK Government do something similar?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We learn from abroad, which I am always very much in favour of, but we also do things our own way. Noble Lords will remember that the Government launched and tested the emergency alert service earlier this year and we have strategies such as WeatherReady and “check for flooding”. We also have a local tier of work which I know to be very powerful from my local village; local resilience forums reach down into local communities and some of them communicate very well. Through the pilots that the Secretary of State for DLUHC has pioneered, we must ensure that best practice is replicated right across the country so that citizens are prepared and ready.

Official Statistics Order 2023

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 24th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Earl of Courtown]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 July.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.

Cabinet Manual

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 24th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to submit a draft revised Cabinet Manual to the appropriate committees of both Houses for their comments.

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

My Lords, the Government’s current intention is to share draft material for review in the autumn. The Cabinet Secretary wrote to the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in June to set out this plan. Since then, officials have been engaging with the clerks of the committees, and they will continue to do so over the summer to provide the latest information.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that welcome confirmation of news that progress is at last being made. It is now 18 months since the noble Lord, Lord True, in answering the debate on the Constitution Committee’s report, said he regretted that there had not yet been a revision. There have been five revisions of the Ministerial Code since 2015 and four of the special advisers’ code, but none of this code. Does the Minister agree that it is extremely important to have these consultations completed and the draft published in final form before the likely date of the next election, to ensure that the constitutional transfer of authority after the next election—to whichever Government are then formed—is conducted according to the rules laid out in the Cabinet Manual as revised?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. The Cabinet Secretary made it clear in his letter to the committees that the plan was to complete the work so that the new and revised Cabinet Manual could be published in good time for the next general election.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that the Opposition should be consulted on this, just in case the next incumbent should be Keir Starmer? Could it perhaps start with an undertaking that—in the absence today of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—we revert to the “good chaps” theory of government whereby the Prime Minister and all Ministers keep to not just the law but the spirit of the law?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The procedure we are going to follow is to engage the committees, as I explained, because they can do a good job in bringing together the views of parliamentarians on the Cabinet Manual. Obviously, in due course the revised manual will become available, but the first step will be to consult the committees. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake —I am not sure whether she is in her place—led a very good debate in the autumn on this matter. We will also consult key academics. As the noble Baroness said, it is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is not in his place. However, I make the point that the Cabinet Manual records rules and practices; it is not intended to be the source of new rules.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the duty on Ministers to adhere to the constitutional principles of the Cabinet Manual will be included in its foreword when it is next produced?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will check to see whether that is intended, but I will certainly look very positively at the point the noble Lord has made, and, indeed, at the Seven Principles of Public Life. Having now had to study the Cabinet Manual, I think it provides a very important landscape that references various bits of guidance such as the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code, which are also important in their own right. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, explained, these tend to be amended a little more frequently.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, will the Cabinet Manual ensure that Parliamentary Answers are full and accurate and that, regarding ministerial correspondence, people can expect replies within a matter of days, if not weeks? That used to be the position but, since I was a boy, things seem to have deteriorated.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. As I explained, it is to some extent an outline document. There is guidance on ministerial correspondence, which he may not be aware of; I will certainly send him a link to it.

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

My Lords, when the last Cabinet Manual was considered and the Scotland Act was passed through both Houses of this Parliament, it was never envisaged that a Scottish Government would stray into reserved areas, as they are now doing. Therefore, there are no sanctions that the UK Government can impose on that kind of action. Could this be considered when the Cabinet Manual is revised?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will certainly take that point away. It is obviously a UK Government document; it is signed off by UK Ministers, who are accountable to the UK Parliament. However, one of the revisions that will be needed relates to the changes in the devolution settlements. I think there have been two Wales Acts and two Scotland Acts since the manual was last revised.

[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.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, that is a very interesting point. I have tabled Written Questions, asked Oral Questions and received Answers which I am sure were given in good faith, only for someone else then to make an FoI request and for different information to come back, which was then sent to me. The Minister acted perfectly properly, but it cannot be right for an FoI request to give different information from that in the response to a Written Question or Oral Question. Can the Minister look at that?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

If the noble Lord would be kind enough to share the example with me, as I look after FoI requests and many Parliamentary Questions, I will see what happened.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, further to the answer my noble friend gave me, in which she said that guidance was provided on this, it is absolutely apparent that that guidance is not being followed. Could the code be strengthened so that we get proper Answers, and so that Ministers, particularly in this place, are given proper briefing by officials?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That probably goes beyond the Cabinet Manual point and may be more urgent. I will see what I can do for my noble friend.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, did I hear from the Minister that she finds Questions very useful so far as the Government are concerned? Would she therefore welcome an extension of Question Time, to make us even more useful?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That matter would be beyond my responsibility. As I was speaking, I was thinking of the Written Questions I get and how they are often seen as a poor relation. However, in them I am asked about things I do not necessarily know about, and as a Minister I—perhaps curiously—find that useful. When at the Dispatch Box during Question Time, one often looks at the Clock, so one would have to look at it for longer.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, to return to the general point, the Minister may have considered that we might be changing from one Government to another after the election, which will overlap with the United States doing the same. We have seen, painfully, from the last transfer of power in the United States that one should never take the constitutional transfer of power for granted. The Cabinet Manual is most useful during a change of government, as many of those who have commented on it have said. Is the Minister conscious that one needs to push to ensure that it is therefore available for all those who might be Ministers after the next election, well before the campaign starts?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I said that we are looking ahead to timing, bearing in mind the general election, and I repeat that undertaking. I am glad that he mentioned the United States, where there is a very different system, involving a written constitution. One of the strengths of our constitution, and indeed of our history, is its flexibility and ability to evolve according to changing circumstances. Since the last Cabinet Manual, we have had a lot of changes in circumstances—Covid, Ukraine, Brexit and so on.