Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament: Special Report

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Morris of Aberavon

Monday 4th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I say again that the length of time that the Government have had this report is not at all unusual. It was delivered on 17 October, which is not a very long time ago. The Prime Minister is entitled to take his view on what the report contains.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister say whether the report will be published before the election?

[Earl Howe]

On the timescale, I can go no further than I already have.

Police: Serious and Violent Crime

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Morris of Aberavon

Thursday 15th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear that there are several noble Lords competing for a place. It is difficult to make a judgment, but I think we should hear from the Green Party.

Type 31 Frigate

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Morris of Aberavon

Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

It depends whose frigates and destroyers one is talking about, because we are in an alliance and no doubt we will depend on those frigates and destroyers of other allies as well as our own.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned publication of the strategy in the spring of 2017. Is this not the spring? Are we not in April now?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, if winter comes, can spring be far behind?

Francis Report: Update and Response

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Morris of Aberavon

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

We envisage that all NHS providers should be subject to whatever practical measures are agreed. We are not yet in a position to be prescriptive about what those arrangements should be. We will consult on how best to implement Sir Robert’s recommendations in the least burdensome way possible but in a way that fulfils his ambitions to the maximum extent. I totally take my noble friend’s point that junior doctors and non-clinical staff are often in the best position to judge the health and culture of an organisation. Indeed, I am aware that the CQC, when inspecting a hospital, often makes a point of convening a focus group consisting of junior doctors because it knows that there is a great deal to be learnt from that source. On community care, again, we have taken no firm decisions on how this will come about, but we wish to take the advice of those whose views we value.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement and congratulate Sir Robert once again on his most thorough analysis. I also welcome the long overdue proposed change in the law to make employers responsible if whistleblowers are harassed. Does the suggested new duty of candour mean that never again will we see gagging clauses in any NHS contractual arrangements? How long have gagging clauses been tolerated and what is the justification for them?

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. NHS guidance has consistently made it clear that, where confidentiality clauses are used, they should go no further than is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of both the employer and the employee. There are circumstances when a gagging clause is appropriate, but local policies should always prohibit the inclusion of confidentiality clauses in contracts of employment and settlement agreements that seek to prevent an individual making a disclosure in the public interest, in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Such clauses are often referred to as gagging clauses. If such clauses were to be included in a severance agreement or settlement, they would be deemed void in any event. We have made it amply clear to NHS organisations where the boundary lies between those two types of confidentiality clause.