Emergency Alert System: Fujitsu

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
Wednesday 19th April 2023

(1 year ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom Portrait Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

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

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom Portrait Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

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

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

Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
Thursday 14th March 2019

(5 years, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate these SIs, but I have one or two questions of clarification. Luckily, the Minister has already answered my question about the Modern Slavery Act.

As I understand it, the first of the two SIs, in practice, relates to third-country public procurement by the UK. I admit to having a concern about the interests of our own UK businesses and small operators that are involved in procurement. I refer to my registered interests, just in case any might be affected, although the impact assessment suggests that the impact of this order is negligible.

My experience is that we in the UK are more punctilious about enforcement of procurement rules based on,

“transparency, non-discrimination, equal treatment and proportionality”,

and the remedies for breach of any of those; I picked up the wording from paragraph 6.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to comment on the risk that the changes will put us at a future disadvantage and not be fully reciprocated by the third countries concerned in the procurement process. If there is a risk, how long will it last? The SI lasts for 18 months, but I am not clear whether that is 18 months altogether or 18 months during which contracts might be let. Of course, procurement contracts often go on for many years.

I was sorry to see that there was no public consultation on this SI, but perhaps my noble friend the Minister can let me know if any concerns have been raised since the SI was published. I fully support the second SI on electronic invoicing. The UK has led the charge in Brussels on permitting businesses and citizens, and people around the world, to take advantage of the magic of online. That includes invoicing, contracts and many basic things. Both in business and as a Minister, this is an area that I have strongly supported and I am glad to see that electronic invoicing continues to apply. Our support for online should continue in third-country and EU procurement, although I know that the latter may be more peripherally affected on this occasion.

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom Portrait Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can help me. In view of the contingent nature of these SIs, is it the Government’s policy to honour the result of last night’s vote in another place?